1. The accused was tried and convicted for having made building constructions after the expiry of the two months' time mentioned in the license issued to him by the Vice Chairman.
2. Several objections have been raised against the legality of the trial and conviction.
3. It is only necessary to deal with one of the objections, namely, that preferred under Section 280 of the District Municipalities Act (Madras Act IV of 1884), "No person shall be tried for any offence against the provisions of this Act or of any bye-law made under Section 255 except upon complaint made by the Police or by the Municipal Council or by the Chairman or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the Municipal Council or by the Chairman."
4. In this case, this complaint, so far as it relates to the charge on which petitioner was tried and convicted, was made by a Municipal servant (the Sanitary Inspector), who was expressly authorised by the Chairman to complain against the petitioner (see Exhibit F) only if the latter had encroached on Municipal ground deviating from the plan attached to his application Exhibit A for license, and (as we understand the Chairman's order) for such deviation.
5. The Sanitary Inspector was not expressly or even impliedly authorised to prefer a complaint about the petitioner's having exceeded the time limit mentioned in his license.
6. We, therefore, set aside the proceedings and the conviction as illegal and direct the fine imposed to be refunded to the petitioner (if paid).