KASHMIRI LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to the High Court by the Distrust Magistrate of Meerut. One Lala Kashmiri Lal, Agarwal Jaini, who has premises in the notified area of Baraut, was fined Rs. 15 by a Magistrate of the First class for failing to comply with a notice issued by the Committee of the notified area as the sanitary authority, requiring him to construct a cess-pool; and also Rs. 2 a day from a certain date in respect of future breaches. The latter part of the order, as has often been pointed out, is clearly illegal and mast be set aside. Future breaches must be dealt with somewhat differently, as I will point out presently. Magistrates who have to administer this rather troublesome and important Act would do well to study the provisions more closely than they seem to do. However, this part of the case raises no question of importance.

(2.) The main point on which the case has been referred to this Court is a question of importance to the general public and to sanitary authorities. It is unfortunate that in a matter of this kind they have not thought it necessary to be represented and I have to deal with it without any assistance; but I have come to a clear conclusion as to the law upon the subject.

(3.) The premises of the owner, Kashmiri Lal, seem to adjoin a Jain temple which is visited by a large number of women from time to time, and the Committee of the notified area, no doubt for good reasons, formed the opinion that the existing method of dealing with the rain water and dirty water from his premises was unsatisfactory and in sanitary. That is a question entirely within their competence. In the month of June they passed a resolution requiring him under Section 267(b) of the Municipalities Act of 1916 to construct a cesspool in a certain manner, namely, partly under his wall and partly on or into a kharanja. The object of this requirement seems to have been to collect the water in some form of storage, which would facilitate its removal and prevent its distribution on the public road in the neighbourhood of the temple. Notices were issued to the owner giving him, in accordance with the scheme provided by the Act, 15 days to construct a cesspool. The notices were for some reason addressed to his peon, presumably because it was known that this was the most certain way of reaching him. Nothing turns on this, as Kashmiri Lal has acknowledged the receipt of the notices, The first notice was issued on the 2nd of July, the second on the 1 of August, upon which Kashmiri Lal filed an objection and asked the Committee to allow him to construct a drain. On the report of a member of the Committee this request was refused and a fresh notice was issued to him on the 15 of October. Various technical questions have been raised about the service and the form of the notice. There is nothing in these. The form of the notice was correct and adequate, referring to the Section under which the requirement had been made by the Committee and also to the number and date of the Committee's resolution. Kashmiri Lal did not comply with the notice and proceedings were taken against him under Section 307 (6), which makes a person liable to a fine for failing to comply with a notice given under the provisions of the Act. There is no question that Kashmiri Lal has failed to comply with the notice. The only real question is whether it was given under the provisions of the Act. It seems to me quite clear that it was.