1950 Supreme(Cal) 23
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SEN GUPTA, K. C. CHUNDER
RAM KUMAR SHAW - Appellant
Versus
BHATPARA MUNICIPALITY - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 1116 Of 1949
Decided On : FEBRUARY 7, 1950
Purnendu Sekhar Basu, S.S.MUKHERJEE
The time limit for prosecution under Section 532 of the Bengal Municipal Act does not apply to the application for an order of removal under Section 330.
Headnote:
Demolition - Goomti - The court upheld the order of demolition of a goomti erected on municipal land without necessary sanction, ruling that the time limit of six months for prosecution under Section 532 of the Bengal Municipal Act did not apply to the application for an order of removal under Section 330.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was ordered to demolish a goomti erected on municipal land without necessary sanction. The petitioner argued that the goomti had existed for more than six months before the application for demolition, but the court found that a smaller goomti had been removed and a larger one erected within six months.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the order of demolition, ruling that the time limit for prosecution under Section 532 of the Bengal Municipal Act did not apply to the application for an order of removal under Section 330.
Issues: The main issue was whether the time limit of six months for prosecution under Section 532 of the Bengal Municipal Act applied to the application for an order of removal under Section 330.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bengal Municipal Act makes a clear distinction between an application for an order of removal and prosecution, and that there is no time limit fixed in the Act for such an application under Section 330.
Final Decision: The court discharged the Rule and upheld the order of demolition of the goomti.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition in revision by one Ram Kumar Shaw who was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore to demolish a goomti which was said to have been erected on municipal land without necessary sanction. The contention of the Municipality was that this goomti was raised within six months. A previous smaller goomti having been raised the Municipality directed the petitioner to remove the same and he complied with that order but subsequently he put up this goomti where he was, it seems, carrying on a shop. This was a larger goomti. The petitioner's contention was that this was the previous goomti referred to by the Municipality which was still in existence and the previous goomti existed more than six months before the application by the Municipality to the Magistrate, the Municipality could not ask the Magistrate to pass an order of demolition. As a fact the Magistrate held on the evidence that there was previously a smaller goomti more than six months before the application but that was removed and this new goomti, a bigger one, had been erected only a short while before the application and very much within six months. He, therefore, ordered the demolition of this new goomti.
( 2 ) ON revision the Additional District Magistrate upheld the order of the Magistrate. Then the present Rule was obtained.
( 3 ) IT is urged by Mr. Basu appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as demolition was a form of punishment we should take it that this order of demolition was on a prosecution by the Municipality and therefore Section 532, Bengal Municipal Act, which requires prosecution within six months, applied and as in the present case action was taken more than six months after the erection of the goomti, the order of removal was bad.
( 4 ) IT is quite immaterial whether erection of an unauthorised structure is an offence or not or whether an order of removal is one in the nature of a punishment. The Bengal Municipal Act in Section 330 makes a clear distinction between an application made to the Magistrate for an order of removal and any prosecution which may take place over the same matter. Prosecutions in a majority of cases are provided for in Sections 500 and 501 and other sections of the aforesaid Act. The order of removal is provided in Section 330 and it is quite a distinct order from a prosecution. There is no time limit fixed in the Act for such an application under Section 330 of the aforesaid Act. Therefore the contention that there is a time limit of six months cannot stand. We have already pointed out that on facts also this contention cannot be supported as was pointed out by the Magistrate. Under the circumstances the Rule is discharged.