P. Gopalachari vs The Corporation of Madras

Lakshmana Rao, J.—The evidence justifies the conclusion of the Magistrate that the street in question is a private street, but particulars of the work to be carried out by the petitioner were not specified in the notice issued to him u/s 218 of the City Municipal Act nor was it proved that the time within which, the work is to be carried out was specified in the notice served on him. The time was not specified in Ex. E, the copy of the notice on which his acknowledgment for service of notice, was obtained, and Ex. E-1, the Office copy of the notice which was produced and marked in evidence just before delivery of judgment does not by itself prove that any time was specified in the notice served on the petitioner. The supervisor (P.W. 1) does not say that to his knowledge the time was specified in the copy served on the petitioner, and it follows that the conviction u/s 357, Clause (1) of the City Municipal Act for failure to comply with a notice u/s 218 cannot be sustained. The conviction of the petitioner is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded.