Emperor Vs. Eugene Miranda

city of bombay municipal act (bom. iii of 1888), section 231-municipal commissioner-notice to connect waste water pipes with existing drains-essentials of notice-validity of notice.;section 231 of the city of bombay municipal act, 1888, empowers the municipal commissioner to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of a house to make a drain for waste water of such material, size and description and laid at such level (and according to such alignment) and with such fall and outlet as may appear to the commissioner necessary, emptying into a municipal drain or some place legally set apart for the discharge situated at a distance not exceeding one hundred feet. thus, a notice authorised by the section is one requiring the owner or occupier to make a drain of the character therein specified, that is to say, of such material, size and description and so forth as may appear to the commissioner necessary.;hence, a notice issued under section 231 requiring the owner of a house to connect, within fifteen days, the unconnected waste water of the nahanies and wasting places to the municipal storm water drain after obtaining the necessary permit of the owners of the drain was not a sufficient notice to comply with the section.;emperor v. trikamlal keshavlal (1937) 40 bom. l. r. 314, referred to. - .....231 requires him within fifteen days to connect the unconnected waste water of the nahanies and wasting places to the municipal storm water drain on lady jamshedji road after obtaining necessary permit of the owners of the drain in sorab mill lane. in my opinion that is not a sufficient notice to comply with section 231. that section provides that :where any premises are, in the opinion of the commissioner, without sufficient means of effectual drainage and a municipal drain or some place legally set apart for the discharge is situated at a distance not exceeding one hundred feet from some part of the said premises, the commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of the said premises to make a drain of such material, size and description and laid at such level (and according to such alignment) and with such fall and outlet as may appear to the commissioner necessary, emptying into such municipal drain or place aforesaid.it is not disputed that the conditions necessary to bring section 231 into operation exist in this case, but the notice authorised by that section is one requiring the owner or occupier to make a drain of the character therein specified, that is to say, of such material, size and description, and so forth as may appear to the commissioner necessary. here all that the notice does is to require the owner or occupier to connect his drain with the municipal drain. it gives him no particulars at all as to the character of the drain which the commissioner thinks necessary, and in my opinion that is not a notice complying with the section. we held in a recent case (emperor v. trikamlal keshavlal (1937) 40 bom. l.r. 314 that a similar construction should be adopted in relation to section 129 of the bombay municipal boroughs act. on that ground i think that the application must succeed, and the conviction must be set aside. fine to be refunded.wassoodew, j.2. i agree.