Guha Ray, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order-of acquittal of the opposite arty, who is alleged have infringed Rules 32 and 25 of Schedule XVII to the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as extended to Howrah and who on receipt of a requisition under Rule 22 failed to carry out the directions in the requisition, so as to be liable under section 488 of the Calcutta Municipal Act for having infringed Rule 22. The requisition was in these terms:- "In connection with the unauthorised conversion of building from hut at No. 17, Joya Bibi Road, Howrah you are requested under Rule 22 of Schedule XVII Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to Howrah to remove the under-mentioned defects to bring the structures in conformity with the building rules within seven days, failing which, action will be taken against you under the provision of the Act." The learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite party on the ground that the requisition itself was defective because no opportunity was given to the opposite party to show cause against the directions given. Rule 22 is in these terms : "The Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner of any building either- (i) to make such alterations as may be specified in the notice with the object of bringing the work into conformity with the said plans, or (ii) to appear before them and show cause why such alterations should not be made."
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is open, under Rule 22, to the Commissioners to direct the owner of the building either to make the alterations or to appear before them to show cause why the alterations should not be made. There is, however, section 510(1) which runs as follows:- "When any requisition or order is made under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as in force in the Municipality of Howrah or under any rule or by-law made thereunder by written notice issued by the Commissioners or by any Municipal Officer empowered under section 12 in this behalf:- (a) a reasonable period shall be prescribed in such notice for carrying such requisition or order into effect, and (b) a reasonable period shall be prescribed in such notice within which any written objection thereto shall be received by the Commissioners or the Municipal Officer issuing the notice."
(3.) It is clear from the terms of section 510(1) that it is not enough for the Commissioners to state in the notice what the owner of the building will have to do. It is equally necessary for them to prescribe in the notice a reasonable period during which the owner of the house served with a notice may come up before the Commissioners and object to the directions made. If Rule 22 is examined in the light of this provision it will be clear that clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 22 are not really two independent alternatives. Although they are put in the Rule as alternatives both of them must be mentioned in the notice and the use of the word "or" in the Rule merely signifies this that if the owner of the house served with a notice is not prepared to carry out the directions mentioned in clause (1) it is open to him to appear before the Commissioners and show cause why such alterations should not be made. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, quite right in the view he took, namely, that the notice actually served on the opposite party was defective, and the contravention of the requirements of the notice, therefore, amounted to no offence. The Rule must accordingly be discharged.;