NAGAR MAHAPALIKA VARANASI THOUGHT ITS MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI Vs. RAM PRAKASH NAGAR
LAWS(ALL)-1964-5-21
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 15,1964

Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi Thought Its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Prakash Nagar Respondents




JUDGEMENT

C.B.Capoor, J. - (1.)This appeal by the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi is directed against an appellate order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Varanasi whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent against an order of a learned Special Honorary Magistrate, II class, Varanasi, finding the respondent guilty of having contravened the provisions of Sec. 307 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 25/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month was allowed.
(2.)The respondent Ram Prakash Nagar was in occupation of house No. J-12/15 D in the Mohalla Dhoopchandi, Bolia Bagh, Varanasi in which at the relevant date, he carried on the business of electroplating and polishing. In order to carry on the aforesaid process, he had obtained the sanction of the Government, Uttar Pradesh, for 10 B.H.P. connection in the aforesaid premises and had paid a sum of Rs. 1,252/5/- as the installation charges to the Banaras Electric Light and Power Supply Co. Ltd. Adjacent to the aforesaid house were the premises No. J-12/15 (A)-1 of one Kanhaya Lal wherein he carried on the manufacturer of bells. There was a shaft connecting the machines installed in the premises of the respondent and those of Kanhaya Lal and through that shaft the respondent used to supply electric energy with which the machines installed in the premises of Kanhaya Lal used to work. On 18-1-1960 the Administrative of the Municipal Board, Varanasi issued a notice purporting to be under Sec. 245 of the U.P. Municipalities Act to the respondent requiring him to stop using his house No. J-12/15 D for manufacturing purposes as the machines installed therein were tantamount to public nuisance. He was required to comply with the notice within one week failing which legal action would be taken against him under sub-Section (2) of Sec. 245 of the Municipalities Act. The respondent failed to comply with the terms of the notice and his prosecution was sanctioned by the Administrator. A complaint was, accordingly, filed against the respondent wherein he was alleged to have contravened the provisions of Sec. 245/307 of the Municipalities Act. The defence put forward by the respondent was that he was carrying on the business of electro-plating and polishing in his house, that no noise was created by the working of the machines and that, in any case, the working of the machines was not tantamount to a 'public nuisance'.
(3.)The learned Magistrate held the respondent guilty under Sec. 307 of the U.P. Municipalities Act only, and sentenced him as indicated above. As against the aforesaid order an appeal was filed by the respondent and the learned court of appeal, on a consideration of the appeal, on a consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the machines which were installed in the house of the respondent did not constitute a 'public nuisance.' In arriving at the aforesaid conclusions he relied upon the statement made by the Additional Medical Officer of Health to the effect that there was a shaft connecting the machines installed in the house of the respondent and the house of Kanhaya Lal. The working of the machines installed in the house of Kanhaya Lal amounted to a 'public nuisance' and as the respondent supplied energy to the machines of Kanhaya Lal he was also responsible for the public nuisance. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.