Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
B.Bala Tripurasundari - Appellant
Versus
Building Inspector, Vijayawada municipality, Vijayawada - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-82
MUNICIPALITIES ACT - SECTION 264 - INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY WITHOUT PERMISSION - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION - VALIDITY - LIMITATION FOR PROSECUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner installed a drilling machine and a grinder driven by 1.75 HP motor in the workshop without obtaining the necessary permission from the concerned authority. The petitioner submitted an application for permission to the Director of Town Planning through the Special Officer and Commissioner Vijayawada Municipality instead of presenting it to the Municipal Council, Vijaywada as contemplated under Section 264 of the Act. The petitioner failed to comply with the notice issued under Section 359 (a) of the Act to remove the offending installation within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for permission submitted by the petitioner was not valid as it was not presented to the Municipal Council as required under Section 264 of the Act. The prosecution for the breach of Section 264 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was not launched within 3 months from the date of non-compliance with the notice under Section 359 (1) of the Act to remove the offensive installation.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for permission submitted by the petitioner was valid? 2. Whether the prosecution for the breach of Section 264 of the Act was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for permission submitted by the petitioner was not valid as it was not presented to the Municipal Council as required under Section 264 of the Act. The petitioner had addressed the application to the Director of Town Planning through the Commissioner and Special Officer of Vijayawada Municipal Council instead of the Municipal Council itself. 2. The court held that the prosecution for the breach of Section 264 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was not launched within 3 months from the date of non-compliance with the notice under Section 359 (1) of the Act to remove the offensive installation. The court relied on Section 366 of the Act, which provides a period of limitation for launching a criminal prosecution for any offence against the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The convictions and sentences of the petitioner under Section 263 read with section 336 of the Act were confirmed. The convictions and sentences under section 264 read with section 336 of the Act were set aside. The fine amount if any paid already was ordered to be refunded to the petitioners.
( 1 ) 1. The petitioner in each of the cases has been convicted under sections 263 and 264 read with section 336 of the Andnra Pradesh municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and has been sentenced respectively to pay a fine of Rs. 35/- and in default to serve simple imprisonment for 5 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,700/- and in default to serve simple imprisonment for three months.
( 2 ) THE iscir, in eii these seven cases are similar and questions arising for determination are also common. Therefore, it would be sufficient if the facts in one of the cases are set out for proper appreciation of the questions of law that fall for determination. I shall, therefore, refer to the relevant facts in Crl. R. C. No. 157 of 1980.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was running a workshop known as "m/s. Kumar engineering Works" since 1974 having installed a 1-75 HP Electric Motor without permission. The workshop was located in Gopalareddy Road. Governorpet Vijayawada, 2 in the premises bearing Door No 27-23-154. On 1-1-1974, she had submitted en application, Ex. D-3 to the Director of town Planning, Hyderabad, through the Commissioner and Special Officer. Vijayawada Municipality for permission for installation of motor and welding set. The Municipal Council, Vijayawada, considered the application of the petitioner on 8-7-1974 and passed a resolution No. 384 dated 8-7-1974 refusing permission to the petitioner for installation of the electric motor and welding set. In pursuance of the said resolution the Municipal commissioner, Vijayawada issued an order Ex D-l dt/19-7-1974 informing the petitioner thst the permission sought by her for the installation of electric motor and welding set had been refused as the Installation fell within the residential area and it was a source of nuisance to the public, fnspite of the refusal, the petitioner installed an electric motor and machinery in the premises end was running the workshop, since 1974. The tax receipts Exs. D-4 to D-7 show that profession tax of Rs. 16/- was collected from the petitioner for the years 1975 to 78.
( 4 ) P. W.-1, the Building Inspector of Vijsyawada Municipal Council inspected the area abutting the Gopalreddi Road on 2-11-1976 He found thet the petitioner was funning a workshop by name kumar Engineering works In the premisos by installing a drilling machine and grinder with 1. 75 HP Electric Motor, without containing the requisite permission to instal the machinery under Section 264 of the Act of licence to run the workshop under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, he sent up a report ex P-1 to his Superiors. Thereupon, the Commissioner issued a notice ex. P-2 under Section 35-A of the Act to the petitioner informing her that she had Installed the motor end the grinder without the requisite permission from the Vijayawada Municipal Council as required under Section 264 of the Act and the machinery was being run without a licence as required under Section 263 of the Act and directed her to stop the runninp the machineiy and rerr. cve jhe entire machinery along with the e/ectric motor within a week of the receipt of notice. This notice wss served on the managing Partner of M/s. Kumar Engineering Works on 16-11-1976. But the petitioner did not take any steps to stop the running of the machinery or to remove the machinery ss required under Ex. P-2. The Building Inspector, P. W,-1 again inspected the installation of kumar Engineering Works on 14-3-1977 and found that the industry was working with electric motor and machine inspite of the notice served on the petitioner on 16-11-1976. Therefore, P,w 1 sens up a report Ex. P-3 seekinp permission to prosecute the petitioner. The Commissioner and Special Officer authorised P. W.-1 under the proceedings Ex. P-4 to file a complaint In the Court against the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of Sec263 and 264 of the Act. Accordingly P. W-1 filed the complaint before the IV Additional Judici
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
