AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Byers, J.—Three points have been urged in seeking the admission of this revision petition. The first of them is that a "latrine" does not come
within the scope of Section 39(1) of the Madras Public Health Act. This point does not appear to have been raised in the trial Court. The learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered that the term "" sanitary convenience "" was sufficiently wide to include a latrine. As the point was not taken in
the trial Court, I see no sufficient reason for interfering with his finding.
The second point is one of limitation, Mr. Narayanaswami Iyer contending that as Section 39(1) of the Act does not contemplate any period
within which the notice must be complied with, as in the case of Section 39(2), the offence must be deemed to have been committed immediately the service of the notice is followed by disobedience. It seems obvious that the construction of a latrine or other type of sanitary convenience requires a certain amount of time and instantaneous compliance with a notice u/s 39(1) would be a physical impossibility. Consequently there is nothing irregular in fixing a time limit for the terms of the notice to be complied with. The effect of this is that the question of disobedience arises only after the expiry of the notice. The case was instituted within three months of the expiry of this period, but apart from this it is obvious that the disobedience is a continuing offence so that no question of limitation arises.
The third point urged is that the petitioner's elder brother is in Occupation of the property but Section 39(1) contemplates notice on the owner
of the property and there has been no suggestion that the petitioner is not an undivided owner with his brother. Section 137(2) provides for service of a notice on one of several owners and there was nothing irregular in requiring the petitioner to effect the necessary construction although his brother may be in actual occupation of the property. There is no necessity for an interference in revision and the petition is ordered to be
dismissed.