- (1.) In July 1946, an appln. was filed by the present petnrs. before the Municipal Mag. of Calcutta under Section 633, Calcutta Municipal Act, complaining of the existence of a nuisance in premises No. 18 Lake View Road, Calcutta, by reason of keeping of cattle therein. The learned Mag. inspected the place & was satisfied that serious nuisance was being caused due to the keeping of cattle in the said premises. He then passed the following order : "I, therefore, direct under Section 535 that the Corporation do abate the said nuisance by removal of all cattle from the said premises. I also direct under Section 388 that the said premises should no longer be used for the purpose of keeping cattle without license under Section 386. I also direct under Schedule 18 (3) of the Act that the Corporation do properly secure & enclose the said land either by C. I. sheets or by masonry walls of appropriate heights at the cost of the land owners so as to prevent trespass by cattle or men. Defendants will have three months time from date hereof within which to carry out the above order & in default thereof the Corporation will carry out the same & will be entitled to realise all costs thereof from the defts. Police is directed to render all necessary help to the Corporation in carrying out the order."
(2.) In the present petn. which was sworn on 25-9-1950, the petnrs. brought to the notice of this Court the fact that up to that time the Mag.'s orders as regards securing & enclosing the land either by corrugated iron sheets or by masonry walls of appropriate heights at the cost of the landowners had not been carried out. Thereupon a rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties, the Administrative Officer & the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court or otherwise dealt with in accordance with law.
(3.) When the rule came up for hearing on 6-12-1950, we were informed that the order of the Mag. had already been carried out. The date when this order was carried out had not been clearly mentioned in the affidavit that was filed on behalf of the opposite parties, but it is abundantly clear that there was considerable delay in carrying out the order. It is worth noticing that it is not mentioned in this affidavit that the order had been carried out before the petn. had been filed in this Court.;