Back
LABROOY v. MUTTU KANGANY
NLR4V51
LABROOY v. MUTTU KANGANY.
M. C., Colombo, 2,417.
Municipal, Councils' Amendment Ordinance, No. 1 of 1896, a. 30 - Commencement of work without notice under s. 29-ss. 198, 199 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1887-Erection of building.
Section 176 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1887 was not intended to apply to substantial buildings with foundations.
The penal provision of section 199 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1887, as amended by section 80 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1896, applies only where a person has, under section 198, as amended by section 29 of Ordinance
No. 1 of 1896, given to the Chairman of the Municipal Council written notice of his intention to erect a building, and has received directions from the Chairman with reference to such building. So that a person who has not given written notice under section 198, and who commences the erection of a building without having given four days' written notice of his intention to do so, as required by section 199, is not. liable to prosecution under the latter section.
THIS was an appeal from a conviction under section 30 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1896 (which amended section 199 of the Municipal Councils' Ordinance, 1877) for commencing to erect a
range of rooms without written notice to the Chairman of the Municipal Council, as required by that section.
W. Pereira, for accused, appellant.-The offence, if any, falls under section 176 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1887. The accused is said to have erected a range of rooms. Section 176 deals with the erection of any " range or block of huts, sheds, or buildings," and the Chairman, with the consent of the Standing Committee, should have taken steps under1 that section. [Bonser, C.J.-That section appears to me to refer to temporary buildings.] The accused was certainly not liable to prosecution under section 199. It is only a person who has given notice as required by section 198 that may be prosecuted under section 199. Section 198 requires notice of intention to erect a building to be given to the Chairman. Where a building is commenced without this notice, the Chairman may take steps under sub-section 3, but no prosecution can take place. Where, however, notice is given under this section, the Chairman may give certain directions, and what section 199 enacts is that, where the Chairman has given directions, a further notice of four days should he given before the building is commenced in accordance with those directions. The object apparently is to enable the Chairman to see that his directions are not disregarded in the initial work of the building. The omission to give this four days' notice is made an offence, but this notice being necessary only where directions have been given by the Chairman, a person who builds without having given notice under the preceding section 198, and therefore without having received directions from the Chairman, can commit no offence under section 199.
Van Langenberg, for respondent.-Section 199 is independent of the provisions of section 198. Whether notice under section 198 has been given or not, the commencement of the erection of any building without four days' notice would appear to be obnoxious to section 199.
BONSER, C.J.
In this case the appellant was convicted and fined Rs. 50 on the charge that he " did commence to erect a building, to wit, " a range of fourteen rooms, at No. 4, Vincent street, without a " written notice of the intention to commence the same having " been given to the Chairman of the Municipal Council at his office " by the person by or for whom such works lire intended to be " commenced, in breach of section "50 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1896." The Municipal Inspector in his evidence stated that, when he
visited the spot, he found the foundation down and the walls raised to the height of some- 2 ft. when he inspected the building, and he says that the accused had no permit to build, and gave no notice before he commenced the work. But another Inspecto
