DAYABHAI LALLUBHAI Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants before us were first given a notice on August 3, 1921, to do certain things under Section 90, Sub-section (3), of the Bombay District Municipal Act in respect of an open space owned by them, but which was accessible to the occupiers of other houses in the same dehla. Objections to that notice were raised and after considering these objections the Municipality issued another notice on June 30, 1922, which is in these terms: By order of the Chief Officer, Ahmedabad Municipality, you are hereby informed by this notice that you get the dehla road in your Pole levelled and make way for passage of water and put up lights for the inhabitants of the dehla.

(2.) One notice was given to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and a similar notice was given to accused No. 3. These notices were not complied with, and as a result the petitioners were prosecuted under the Bombay District Municipal Act. The learned First Class Magistrate found that the notice was legal and that it was not so vague and indefinite as to justify non-compliance with the notice, and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each.

(3.) The accused have applied for a revision of this order, and two points have been urged: firstly, that the open space in respect of which the notice is given is not a street" within the meaning of the definition of the word as given in Section 3, Clause (12), of the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1901; and, secondly, that the notice is vague and indefinite. We have heard an interesting argument as to whether it would be a street within the meaning of the definition. I am satisfied that the space in respect of which notice is given is a street within the meaning of the second paragraph of Clause (12) of Section 3 of the Act.