NASIRUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Nasir Uddin who was convicted by a first class Magistrate of Agra of an offence under Section 307(b), U. P. Municipalities Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with seven days simple imprisonment in default. The additional District Magistrate of Agra reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 15 with seven days simple imprisonment. The facts of this matter, which at the outset required some thrashing out, are now fairly clear. On 21 December 1939, the applicant, Nasir Uddin, sent to the Municipal Board of Agra an application, under Section 178 of the Act, giving notice to the Board of his intention to erect a new building. It was the duty of the Board in the light of Section 180 of the Act to pass orders on this application within a month and it was competent for the applicant, on the Board neglecting or omitting for one month after the receipt of a notice under Section 178 to make and deliver to the applicant an order, by a written communication to call the attention of the Board to the omission or neglect, and Sub-section (3) of Section 180 further provides that if such omission or neglect continues for a further period of 15 days, the Board shall be deemed to have sanctioned the proposed work absolutely.

(2.) The applicant at this stage gave no such notice to the Board but he proceeded to lay the foundations of his building which is in itself an act in the nature of construction. In consequence on 14 February 1940 the Board gave a notice to the applicant under Secs.185 and 186 of the Act, calling on him to remove the constructions which he had already made and also threatening him with prosecution under Section 185 for illegal erection of a building. Section 185 contemplates not only the erection of a building but the beginning, continuance or completion of the erection of a building. The applicant did not pay any attention to this notice after its being served upon him and in consequence a few days later on 21 February the Board served another notice on him to stop further constructions. This notice was really not necessary and, in any case, it could have no effect to cancel or alter the notice, already served, of 14 February. It is not clear what the applicant did but it may be taken that he proceeded in disregard of this notice, also, because at a later stage of the proceedings we find that despite all these notices the applicant had completed the construction of his new building.

(3.) It was in these circumstances, that on 23 April 1940 the applicant sent to the Board a notice purporting to be a notice under Section 180, Sub-section (3) drawing their attention to the omission or neglect of the original application of 21st December 1939. It may perhaps be presumed that it was after he had sent this notice and allowed a further period of 15 days to expire that he proceeded to the completion of his building, but there is no evidence on the record on the point. The applicant was in due course prosecuted for disobedience of the order of 14th February and on 4 October 1940 he was convicted by a Magistrate and fined for not removing the foundation. That conviction and sentence may be taken to cover the period up to 4 October 1940. The applicant has now again been prosecuted for continuing to disobey the notice of 14 February and he has again been convicted and fined and he has got off very lightly indeed. None the less he is not satisfied and it is contended on his behalf that this conviction is illegal.