VAIYAPURI CHETTIAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Secs.177 and 339 of the District Municipalities Act, in that he failed to carry out the order of the Municipality of Salem to connect the roads on a plot which originally belonged to him with the Trichinopoly main road and to fill up pits in a certain road.

(2.) Under Section 176 of the District Municipalities Act the Municipality can grant permission for the construction of private streets and it may lay down conditions under which that permission is accorded. Under Section 177 it is prescribed that if any person makes or lays out any street referred to in Section 176 otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Council, the Municipality may issue a notice calling upon him to carry out his agreement within a certain specified reasonable time. If he fails to do so, the Municipality can take action under Section 177(2). Section 339 makes punishable any neglect or refusal to do an act in compliance with any proper order of the Municipality; so that reading Section 177 with Section 339 a person can be punished who, like the petitioner, has been given sanction under Section 176 to construct a private road and who has not complied with the conditions laid down by the Municipality when that sanction was accorded.

(3.) It is argued that Section 177 can apply only to the present owner and not to a person who long ago parted with his rights; for it cannot be expected that any person should do work to property in which he no longer has an interest. Far from Section 177 restricting the action to the present owner, it clearly intends to have application only against the person who entered into the contract under Section 176. If by reason of parting with the ownership an accused person to whom a notice has been sent under Section 177 is unable to comply with the order, then on general principles a Criminal Court would doubtless refuse to convict; but the petitioner has not shown in the present instance that he has been prevented in any way from complying with the terms laid down by the Municipality. Moreover, I think the learned Public Prosecutor is right when he says that although the petitioner has sold all the house sites, yet he is still the owner of the roads.