Skip to content


Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Krishna Chandra Sil and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 949 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Cal314,54CWN220
ActsCalcutta Municipal Act, 1923 - Section 535
AppellantCorporation of Calcutta
RespondentKrishna Chandra Sil and anr.
Appellant AdvocateSunil Kumar Basu, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAnkush Chandra Basu, Adv. for Opposite Party 1
Excerpt:
- .....complaining that a nuisance was being caused by a dal mill. this matter was gone into by the learned magistrate and he directed the corporation to close down the mill within one mouth from the date of his order and in the same order he passed the order for costs and compensation. this was done behind the back of the corporation as no notice was served upon the corporation before the order was passed. it is true that section 535, calcutta municipal act does not provide for any notice being served but in my opinion it would be entirely unfair and unjust and against all principles of law to pass an order penalising a party without giving the party an opportunity of being heard. the principle audi alteram partem is applicable to a case of this description. 2. i therefore set aside the.....
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. This Rule has been obtained by the Corporation of Calcutta against an order passed by Sri P. Basu, Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, awarding costs against the Corporation and directing the Corporation to pay compensation to the complainant, The proceedings were under, Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. One, Krishna Chandra Sil filed a petition before the Magistrate complaining that a nuisance was being caused by a Dal mill. This matter was gone into by the learned Magistrate and he directed the Corporation to close down the mill within one mouth from the date of his order and in the same order he passed the order for costs and compensation. This was done behind the back of the Corporation as no notice was served upon the Corporation before the order was passed. It is true that Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act does not provide for any notice being served but in my opinion it would be entirely unfair and unjust and against all principles of law to pass an order penalising a party without giving the party an opportunity of being heard. The principle audi alteram partem is applicable to a case of this description.

2. I therefore set aside the order of the learned Magistrate as regards costs and compensation and direst that notice be served the on Corporation to show cause why the costs and compensation should not be paid by the Corporation. Thereafter the learned Magistrate shall hear the parties and pass orders according to law.


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