Skip to content


Pandit Ram Sarup Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.426
AppellantPandit Ram Sarup
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), sections 118, 178, 185, 186, 307 - sanction to erect chabutra--notice prohibiting stone brackets to mpport chabutra, disregard of--offence. - .....the application for sanction was made, it was not mentioned that the new chabutra would rest on stone brackets. the applicant is now being prosecuted for having put up stone brackets to support the new chabutra, for the construction of which the municipality had already granted its sanction. a chabutra can only rest on earth or on pillars or on brackets, and as the sanction did not limit the discretion of ram sarup to build it in any particular form, it was open to him to erect stone brackets for supporting the new chabutra. the prosecution is wholly unjustified. the construction of the chabutra was made with the sanction of the municipal board obtained under section 178 of the u.p. municipalities act, ii of 1916, and a separate sanction for the erection of stone brackets to support.....
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. The applicant Ram Sarup applied to the Municipal Board of Hathras to extend his chabutra by two feet in an almost triangular line so as to make the new chabutra and the old chabutra form a rectangle. He also mentioned that he may be granted permission to put a stone on the drain to serve as a stop for getting on to the chabutra. The map attached to the application explains the position and the form in which the new chabutra was to be built. This sanction was granted. At the time the application for sanction was made, it was not mentioned that the new chabutra would rest on stone brackets. The applicant is now being prosecuted for having put up stone brackets to support the new chabutra, for the construction of which the Municipality had already granted its sanction. A chabutra can only rest on earth or on pillars or on brackets, and as the sanction did not limit the discretion of Ram Sarup to build it in any particular form, it was open to him to erect stone brackets for supporting the new chabutra. The prosecution is wholly unjustified. The construction of the chabutra was made with the sanction of the Municipal Board obtained under Section 178 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, II of 1916, and a separate sanction for the erection of stone brackets to support the chabutra was not needed. The Municipal Board issued a notice under Section 186 requiring Ram Sarup to stop the erection of the stone brackets but he refused to stop the erection. The Trying Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were of opinion that by refusing to stop the erection of the stone brackets he had incurred a liability under Section 307 of the Act, but Section 186 read with Section 185 refers to the construction made either in contravention of the requirements of Section 178, or in contravention of the written directions given by the Board under Section 118 or any bylaw. There is no by-law pointed out to us in this case, and there is nothing in the sanction to forbid the use of stone brackets as supports for the chabutra. The learned Sessions Judge also observes that Ram Sarup had extended his chabutra beyond the size sanctioned by the Board by 6 inches, but there is no mention of any such extension in the notice issued to him by the Municipal Board, nor was that one of the grounds taken by the Municipal Board in the Trial Court In fact the contention of Ram Sarup is that his chabutra does not extend beyond 2 feet any where, and that matter not having been a part of the original complaint, it cannot be tried here. The application is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the applicant are set aside. The fine if realised will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //