136-NLR-NLR-V-21-ERNST-v.-SARAM.pdf
ERNST o. SABAM.
139—M. C. Colombo, 2J.01.
JjOOB 3.—
The accused-appellant was convicted in M. C. Colombo, No. 1,731, ofhaving re-erected four tenements without plans, drawings, and specificationsbeing approved in writing by the Chairman of the Municipal Council, Colombo,in breach of section 5 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1916, and punishable undersection IS (1) (c) and (e) of that Ordinance. The Chairman has now appliedto the court in terms of section 13 (2) of that Ordinance to make a mandatoryorder requiring the accused to demolish those tenements. It is not seriouslydisputed that the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in this case is not areasonable one. The only point really pressed was' that the present prose-cution was unnecessary, and that the application for the mandatory ordershould have 'been made in the same case in which the accused had beenconvicted. It appears to me that such a contention cannot be supported inview of the language used in section 13. It is not necessary to decide thatpoint now, however, for it has already been decided- by this Court in the ease
of Anthonisz v. Salmon Fernando.
The appeal must he dismissed.
1 L. B. 24 Q. B. D. 112.
» I. L. B. 34 Cal. 341.
« l. b. 9 ok. d. err.