May and shall, The word 'may' in s. 363 does not mean 'shall', and that the Magistrate has under that s. a discretion whether he should pass an order for demolition or not, Corporation of Calcutta v. Mulchand Agarwala, AIR 1956 SC 110: (1955) 2 SCR 995.
(ii) The word may' is capable of meaning 'must' or 'shall' in the light of the context and that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word 'may' which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command, Shri Rangaswami, the Textile Commissioner v. Sagar Textiole Mills (P) Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 1516: (1977) 2 SCC 578: (1977) 2 SCR 825.
(iii) As observed in Craies On Statute Law, 7th edn., page 229, the expression 'may' and 'shall' have often been subject of constant and conflicting interpretation. 'May' is a permissive or enabling expression but there are cases in which for various reasons as soon as the person who is within the statute is entrusted with the power, it becomes his duty to exercise it, Ambica Qarry Works v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1073: (1987) 1 SCC 213: (1987) 1 SCR 562.