Judgment Case ID: 368

Judgment:
iminal Appeal No. 60 of 1954. Appeal under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and order dated the 19th January 1954 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 865 of 1953 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 29th April 1953 of the Court of Third Municipal Magistrate	 Calcutta in Case No. 108 A of 1951. N. C. Chatterji	 (section K. Bose and Sukumar Ghose	 with him) for the appellant. G. P. Kar	 (A. K. Mukherjee and D. N. Mukherjee	 with him) for the respondent. November 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta affirming the order of the Municipal Magistrate	 whereby he dismissed an application filed by the appellant under section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act	 1923	 hereinafter referred to as the Act	 for demolition of certain constructions on the ground that they had been erected without the previous permission of the authorities and in contravention of the prescriptions laid down in the building rules. The respondent is the owner of house No. 36	 Armenian Street	 Calcutta. On 28 10 1950 the Building Inspector of the Corporation discovered that some new masonry structures were being constructed on the fifth storey of that house. A notice under section 365 of the Act was immediately served on the respondent directing him to stop forthwith further con 997 structions pending an application to the Magistrate under section 363 of the Act. What followed thereon is graphically described by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court in his order dated 9 4 1954 granting leave to appeal to this Court	 as a hide and seek game. On receipt of the notice	 the respondent stopped the work for a few days	 and thereby lulled the Building Inspector into the belief that no further constructions would be made. When the Inspector ceased to inspect the premises daily	 the respondent resumed the work	 and on 7 11 1950 when the Inspector came again on the scene	 he found that the construction was being proceeded with. A police constable was then posted for watch under section 365 (3) of the Act	 and he continued there till 10 11 1950	 on which date the respondent wrote to the Corporation that he would not proceed further with the construction. The police watch was thereupon withdrawn on the respondent paying Rs. 40 being the charges payable therefor. On 7 12 1950 the Inspector again inspected the premises	 and found that the construc tion was being proceeded with	 and had a constable posted again for watch. On 13 12 1950 the appellant lodged a complaint before the Magistrate under section 488 read with Rule 62 of Schedule XVII charging the respondent with constructing two rooms in the fifth storey without obtaining permission. Section 488(1)(a) enacts that whoever commits any offence by contravening any provisions of any of the sections or rules of the Act mentioned in the first column of the table annexed thereto	 shall be punished with fine as specified in the said table. Rule 62 provides that the erection of a new building shall not be commenced unless and until the Corporation have granted written permission for the execution of the same. The complaint was heard on 11 4 1951. The respondent pleaded guilty	 and was fined Rs. 200. While the proceedings under section 488 were pending before the Magistrate	 the Corporation would appear to have examined the nature of the constructions put up by the respondent	 and found that they contravened Rules 3	 14	 25 and 32 of Schedule XVII	 998 and decided to take action under section 363. They accordingly issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why action should not be taken under that section. The respondent appeared by counsel on 13 2 1951	 and after hearing him	 the appellant decided on 6 3 1951 to move the court for an order under section 363	 and the petition out of which the present appeal arises	 was actually filed on 4 4 1951. There was delay in serving the respondent	 and after he was actually served which was on 17 9 1951	 the case underwent several adjournments	 and finally on 29 4 1953 the Magistrate passed an order dismissing the petition. There was no dispute that the building rules had been contravened. The Magistrate	 however	 held that he had a discretion under section 363 whether he should direct demolition	 and that this was not a fit case in which an order should be made for demolition	 because the constructions being on the fifth storey could not obstruct light and air and thereby inconvenience the neighbours	 and there was no complaint from the residents of the locality	 and that as the respondent had already been fined in pro ceedings under section 488	 an order for demolition would be to penalise him twice over for the same offence. Against this order	 the appellant preferred a revision to the High Court of Calcutta. That was heard by K. C. Chunder	 J. He agreed with the Magistrate that under section 363 the court had a discretion whether it should order demolition or not	 and that as the Corporation had taken proceedings under section 488 and was content to have a fine imposed on the respondent for breach of Rule 62	 it would be unjust to permit it thereafter to start proceedings under section 363 for the further relief of demolition of the building. He also commented on the undue 	delay on the part of the Corporation in taking out the application	 and took into account the fact that no complaint had been received from the locality. In the result	 he dismissed the revision. The appellant applied under article 134(1)(c) for leave to appeal to this Court. Chakravarti	 C. J. and 999 section R. Das Gupta	 J. who heard this application	 considered that two questions of general importance arose on which it was desirable to have the decision of this Court	 viz.	 (1) whether the Corporation was precluded from taking proceedings under section 363 of the Act by reason of its having taken proceedings prior thereto under section 488 of the Act read with Rule 62 of Schedule XVII	 and (2) whether the question of inconvenience to neighbours was relevant for the purpose of deciding whether an order for demolition should be made under section 363 of the Act. They accordingly granted leave under article 134 (1)(c)	 and that is how the appeal is now before us. The first question that arises for our determination is whether the present proceedings under section 363 are barred by reason of the application which was filed under section 488. It is conceded that there is nothing express in the statute enacting such a bar	 but it is contended that it is to be implied from the proviso to section 363 that "where the Corporation have instituted proceedings under section 493	 no application shall be made under this section". Admittedly	 the appellant instituted no proceedings under section 493; but it is argued that proceedings under section 488 substantially fall within section 493	 and that the proviso should therefore be held to be applicable. Under section 493	 if the erection of any new building is commenced without obtaining the writen permission of the Corporation	 the owner of the building shall be liable to a fine which may extend up to Rs. 500. Then	 there is a proviso that where an application had been made under section 363	 no proceeding shall be instituted under this section. This corresponds to the proviso to section 363 set out above	 and reading the two provisions	 it is clear that the proceedings under the two sections are mutually exclusive. Now	 the contention of the respondent is that a prosecution under section 488 for breach of rule 62 of Schedule XVII is	 in essence	 a prosecution under section 493(a)	 and that	 therefore	 the proviso to section 363 becomes applicable. We are 1000 unable to agree with this contention. When the Legislature provides that on the same facts proceedings could be taken under two different sections and the penalties provided in those sections are not the same	 it obviously intends to treat them as distinct	 and	 therefore	 where no question under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises	 proceedings taken under one section cannot be treated as falling within the other. The penalty prescribed in section 488 for breach of rule 62 of Schedule XVII is fine up to the limit of Rs. 200	 whereas the penalty provided for the same offence under section 493(a) is fine which may extend to Rs. 500. It will not therefore be in consonance with the intention of the Legislature to hold that proceedings under section 488 are in substance the same as proceedings under section 493	 so as to be subject to the disability enacted in the proviso to section 363. If the intention of the Legislature was that proceedings taken under section 488 read with rule 62 of Schedule XVII should bar proceedings under section 363	 it could have said so expressly as it did with reference to proceedings taken under section 493. To accede to the contention of the respondent would be to read into section 363 limitations which are not to be found there. We cannot accept such a construction. It was next argued by learned counsel for the respondent that it was open to the Corporation to have asked for demolition of the building in the proceedings taken by it under section 488	 and as it did not ask for it and was content with the imposition of fine	 it was precluded from claiming that relief in the present proceedings. This argument is based on section 536	 which is as follows: "When under this Act or under any rule or bylaw made thereunder any person is liable	 in respect of any unlawful work	 (a) to pay a fine	 and (b) to be required to demolish the work	 a Magistrate may	 in his discretion and subject to the provisions of sections 363	 364 and 493	 direct the said person to pay the fine and also to demolish the work". 1001 In his order dated 9 4 1954	 the learned Chief Justice expressed a doubt whether the Corporation could apply for a demolition order	 when instituting an application under section 488 for breach of Rule 62 of Schedule XVII. We are inclined to share this doubt. What Rule 62 prohibits is the erection of a building without permission	 and under that Rule	 the breach is complete when the erection has commenced	 without reference to whether the construction is being carried on or completed. A question of demolition cannot therefore arise with reference to a breach of Rule 62. It can arise only when the construction of the building is carried on or completed otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the permission or in breach of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules. Now	 in the table annexed to section 488	 while a breach of Rule 62 of Schedule XVII is made punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 200	 there is no similar provision with reference to breach of Rules 3	 14	 25 and 32 of that Schedule. But there is	 instead	 a provision that when a direction is asked for under section 363(1) for demolition	 an order can be passed imposing fine which may extend to Rs. 250. Under that section	 it should be noted	 an application for an order for demolition can be made on three grounds	 viz.	 (1) that the erection of building has been commenced without permission	 (2) that it has been carried on or completed otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the permission	 or (3) that it has been carried on or completed in breach of the provisions contained in the Act or the rules. But there is this difference between an application based on ground No. 1 aforesaid and one founded on grounds Nos. 2 and 3	 that while a question of demolition cannot arise with reference to the former when the charge is com mencement or the construction without permission and at that stage no question of demolition of	 a building necessarily arises	 it does arise as regards the latter. Therefore	 when an application is made under section 488	 whether an order could be made under section 536 for demolition will depend on the ground on which it is founded. And	 where	 as in the 1002 present case	 the application was based solely and exclusively on a breach of Rule 62 of Schedule XVII	 no order could have been passed for demolition under section 536. It is immaterial for the present purpose that the building had been completed when the order was passed on 11 4 1951 on the application under section 488	 because the power to pass an order under section 536 would depend on what the charge as actually laid in the petition was and not on what it might have been. But even if the Magistrate had the power under section 536 to order demolition of the building	 we cannot hold that the appellant is precluded from asking for such an order under section 363 merely by reason of the fact that the Magistrate had failed to pass such an order	 or even that the Corporation did not ask for it in the prior proceedings. There is no question of the application of any principle of constructive res judicata	 and there is nothing in the statute which bars the appellant from claiming relief under section 363. We cannot therefore uphold the contention that the appellant is precluded in any manner by the prior proceedings taken under section 488 from instituting the present petition under section 363. In this view	 the point for decision is whether the order passed by the Municipal Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Judge in revision is open to attack on the merits. The respondent contends that the Magistrate has under section 363 a discretion whether he should pass an order for demolition or not	 and that this Court should not in appeal interfere with the exercise of that discretion especially when it has been concurred in by the High Court. Now	 the language of section 363 is that the Magistrate may pass an order for demolition of the building	 and though the word 'may ' might in some contexts be construed as meaning 'shall '	 that is not the sense in which it is used in section 363. We agree with the respondent that section 363 does not require that when a building is shown to have been erected without permission or completed otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the permission or in breach 1003 of the building rules	 an order for its demolition should be made as a matter of course. In our opinion	 it does give the Magistrate a discretion whether he should or should not pass such an order. That was the construction put in Abdul Samad vs Corporation of Calcutta( ') on section 449 of the Calcutta Municipal Act	 (Bengal Act III of 1899) which corresponds to section 363 of the present Act on language which is	 so far as the present matter is concerned	 the same. in re enacting the present section in the same terms as section 449 of Bengal Act III of 1899	 it must be taken that the legislature has accepted the interpretation put on them in Abdul Samad vs Corporation of Calcutta(1) as correctly representing its intention. It should accordingly be held that the word 'may ' in section 363 does not mean "shall '	 and that the Magistrate has under that section a discretion whether be should pass an order for demolition or not. Then the question is whether the exercise of that discretion by the courts below is open to review by this Court. It is a well settled principle that when the legislature entrusts to an authority the power to pass an order in its discretion	 an order passed by that authority in exercise of that discretion is	 in general	 not liable to be interfered with by an appellate court	 unless it can be shown to have been based on some mistake of fact or misapprehension of the principles applicable thereto. The appellant contends that the orders under appeal are based on mistakes and misapprehensions	 and are therefore liable to be reversed	 and that contention must now be examined. The grounds on which the orders of the courts below are based are (1) that there has been considerable delay on the part of the appellant in moving in the matter	 (2) that as in the proceedings taken under section 488 the respondent has been fined	 an order for demolition was not called for	 and (3) that the breach of the building rules has not resulted in any inconvenience to the public	 nor has there been any complaint from the residents of the locality about this. The materials placed before us do not show (1) Cal. 127 1004 that there has been any great delay on the part of the appellant	 The learned Judge has stated that the present proceedings for demolition were taken subsequent to the imposition of fine on 11 4 1951 in the proceedings under section 488. This is a mistake. The proceedings under section 363 bad been commenced as early as February 1951 when notice was issued to the respondent under the provisions of that section	 and the petition was actually filed in court on 4 4 1951. It is true that the proceedings were pending for nearly two years before the Magistrate	 but as observed by the learned Chief Justice	 far from the Corporation being responsible for it	 it appears to have been the victim of delay on the part of the respondent. Both the courts below have mainly based their order on the fact that the	 Corporation having taken proceedings under section 488 and a fine having been imposed on the respondent	 it would be unjust to impose a further penalty for the same offence by way of demolition. The assumption on which this reasoning rests is that the charge on which the present proceedings have been taken is the same as that on which the petition under section 488 was laid. But	 as already pointed out	 that is not correct. The proceedings under section 488 were taken for erecting a building without permission whereas the present proceedings are taken substantially for breaches of the building rules	 which are quite independent of the charge under Rule 62	 and the respondent is therefore not punished twice over for the same default. The learned Judge observes that this was not a fit case for exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant	 because in the prior proceedings under section 488	 it did not ask for an order for demolition	 nor was such an order made by the Magistrate. That is obviously with reference to section 536 which we have held to be inapplicable to the present case. Moreover 	 when that section enacts that the Magistrate could both impose a fine and order demolition of the building	 that clearly indicates that the fact that a fine has been imposed should not by itself and with 1005 out more	 be taken as sufficient ground for refusing demolition. The courts below were also influenced by the fact that there was no complaint from the neighbours about the erection of the building. It must be remembered that the building rules are enacted generally for the benefit of the public	 and where those rules have been violated and proceedings are taken for an order for demolition of the building under section 363	 what has to be decided is whether the breaches are of a formal or trivial character	 in which case the im position of a fine might meet the requirements of the case	 or whether they are serious and likely to affect adversely the interests of the public	 in which case it would be proper to pass an order for demolition. Whether there has been a complaint from the public would not as such be material for deciding the question	 though if there was one	 it would be a piece of evidence in deciding whether the interests of the public have suffered by reason of the breaches. The position	 therefore	 is that the orders of the courts below are based on mistakes and misdirections	 and cannot be supported. The conduct of the respondent in adopting a hide and seek attitude in completing the constructions in deliberate defiance of the law calls for severe action. It would be most unfortunate	 and the interests of the public will greatly suffer	 if the notion were to be encouraged that a person might with impunity break the building rules and put up a construction and get away with it on payment of fine. All this would be good justification for making an order for demolition. But then	 it is now nearly five years since the building was completed	 and though section 363(2) which directs that no application for demolition shall be instituted after a lapse of five years from the date of the work does not	 in terms	 apply as the proceedings have been started in time	 we do not feel that after the lapse of all this time	 an order for demolition is called for in the interests of the public. We also take into account the fact that the orders in question would not have come before Us in the normal course by way of appeal	 1006 were it not that the appellant desired that the decision of this Court should be obtained on certain questions of importance	 and that purpose has been achieved. On a consideration of all the circumstances	 we do not think that this is a fit case in which we should pass an order for demolition. We should	 however	 add that we find no justification for the strictures passed on the appellant by the court below. In the result	 the appeal is dismissed.

Summary:
The Corporation of Calcutta is not precluded from taking proceedings under section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act	 1923 by reason of its having taken proceedings prior thereto under section 488 of the Act read with Rule 62 of Schedule XVII. The question of inconvenience to neighbours is not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether an order for demolition should be made under section 363 of the Act. When the Legislature provides that on the same facts proceedings could be taken under two different sections and the penalties provided in those sections are not the same	 it obviously intends to treat them as distinct	 and	 therefore	 where no question under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises	 proceedings taken under one section cannot be treated as falling within the other. The word. "may" in section 363 of the Act does not mean "shall" and the Magistrate has under that section discretion whether he should pass an order for demolition or not. It is a well settled principle that when the legislature entrusts to an authority the power to pass an order in its discretion an order passed by that authority in exercise of that discretion is	 in general	 not liable to be interfered with by an appellate court	 unless it can be shown to have been based on some mistake of facts or misapprehension of the principles applicable thereto. In the present case	 however	 the orders of the courts below were based on mistakes and misdirections and therefore could not be supported. But the Supreme Court did not think this to be a fit case for an order for the demolition of the buildings in view of certain special circumstances	 viz	 (1) though section	 363(2)	 which directs that no appli 126 996 cation for demolition shall be instituted after the lapse of five years from the date of the work	 did not	 in terms	 apply as the proceedings had been started in time	 it was nearly five years since the building bad been completed and the interests of the public did not call for its demolition	 and (2) the appeal came on a certificate granted under article 134(1)(c) with a view to obtaining the decision of the Supreme Court on certain questions of importance. Abdul Samzad vs Corporation of Calcutta ([1905] I.L.R. 	 referred to.