DESAI, J. - (1.) THE question "When a person residing in an area to which provisions of Sections 180 and 185 Municipalities Act, 1916, have been extended under Government Notification No. 72 MG/X1 70A dated 6.6.1917, gives notice to the Notified Area Committee of his intention to erect a building under Section 178 of the Act, and commences to erect it before the committee passes an order contemplated by Section 180 (1) and (2), and without calling it attention to its commission of neglect to make it in accordance with sub sections (3) of Section 180, is he liable to be prosecuted under Section 185 of the Act as amended by Section 15, United Provinces Act II (2) of 1919 - referred to us has arisen in these circumstances : Mani Ram applicant, intending to make certain constructions within the limits of the Notified Area, Mahoba, intimated his intention to the Notified Area Committee, as required under Section 178, Municipalities Act, on 27.1.1948, shortly after without waiting for any orders of the Committee and without reminding it of the intimation given by him, he started the constructions. The Committee thereupon prosecuted him under Section 185, Municipalities Act; he has been convicted by the Court below. His revision application came up before a Bench of this Court which being of the view that the decision of this Court in Bafatan v. Emperor, 1933 All LJ 1053 requires reconsideration, referred the question to this Bench.
(2.) THE Municipalities Act was enacted in 1916. Section 178 of it requires that a person wishing to make certain constructions within the limits of a municipality must give notice of his intention to the Board. Section 180, as it stood in 1916, provided that the Board might refuse to sanction the work of which notice had been given or sanction it absolutely or subject to conditions and that if the Board neglected within a month of the receipt of the notice to pass any order on the intimation, the person might remind it and if it still neglected or omitted for a further period of fifteen days, it would be deemed to have sanctioned the work absolutely.
(3.) SECTION 185, as originally enacted, provided for the punishment of a person beginning a work without giving the notice required by Section 178, or in contravention of an order of the Board refusing sanction, or any written directions made by it. Section 337 allows the Government by Notification to declare any local area as a Notified Area and apply to it the provisions of any sections of the Act subject to such restrictions and modifications as it may think fit. In 1917 the Government issued a Notification constituting the Notified Area of Mahoba and applying to it the sections mentioned in the schedule attached to the notification without any modifications. The schedule includes Sections 178 to 186, except Section 182. The provisions in Sections 178 to 185 in the original Act were defective inasmuch as a person wishing to make a construction within a municipality was required to give intimation of his intention, but was not required to wait for the municipality to pass suitable orders on it. As the law stood then; he could start making the constructions immediately after giving intimation of his intention and might even finish the construction before the municipality had any time to consider the matter. To remove this defect the Municipalities Act was amended in 1919. Sub -section (5) was added to Section 180, providing that no person should commence any work of which he has given notice until sanction has been or deemed to have been given. A consequential amendment was made in Section 185 providing punishment for contravention of the provisions of this sub -section. No notification has been issued by the Government expressly applying these added provisions of Sections 180 and 185 to the Notified Area of Mahoba which continues to be governed solely by the notification of 1917. The contention of the applicant is that his case is governed by Sections 180 and 185 as they stood in 1917 (at the time of the issue of the notification) and not by the provisions added in them by the Amending Act of 1919. He had given intimation of his intention. He did not wait for the Board's sanction and did not call its attention to its omission or neglect to pass an order; but thereby he did not contravene any provision of the Act as it stood in 1916 or 1917. So if his case was governed by the Act as it stood in 1916 or 1917, he was not guilty and his conviction would have to be set aside. The Notified Area Committee contends that the case is governed by the Act as it stood in 1948 when he started making the construction.;