Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The petitioner Dulal Chandra Dulai has come up with this revisional application against the order of the learned Magistrate directing the demolition of an unauthorised construction made by the petitioner within Bally Municipality in respect of premises no. 27, J.N. Ray Bahadur Street. It is being opposed by the Bally Municipality. The State has also entered appearance although we find no scope for such appearance either under the law or in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(2.) Before we deal with the points raised by Mr. Roy Chowdhury let us state the relevant facts. The petitioner was convicted under section 333/500 of the Bengal Municipal Act for some unauthorised construction in his premises no. 27 J.N. Roy Bahadur Street. He pleaded guilty and he was sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and the said fine was paid. Subsequently an application was filed by the Municipally for necessary orders for demolition of the unauthorised structure and the order was passed.
(3.) It appears from the judgment that it was contended before the learned Magistrate that the accused took up the plea of guilt in the previous case on misconception of law. But the learned Magistrate rejected that plea. Subsequently it was contended before the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate had discretion in the matter of passing orders for demolition due to the word 'may' appearing in the relevant provision of law. That contention was not accepted in view of the fact that the learned Magistrate was convinced that it was his duty to pass order for demolition in view of the spirit of the Bengal Municipal Act for the safety of the civic life.;