148-NLR-NLR-V-55-A.-H.-M.-SAHEED-Appellant-and-L.-BAPTISTE-Sanitary-Inspector-Respondent.pdf
SWAN J.—Saheed v. Baptiste
527
1953
Present: Swan J.
A. H. M. SAHEED, Appellant, and L. BAPTISTE (Sanitary Inspector),
Respondent
S. G. 1,171—M. C. Negombo, 64,175
Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance—Section 13 (1) (b)—Deviation fromapproved plan–—Cleaning of ‘‘ plan ’’.
* Where a person is charged under section 13 (1) (b) of the Housing and TownImprovement Ordinance with deviating from an approved plan in respect of abuilding, it is not necessary for the complainant to establish that the plan wasdrawn to scale ; it will be sufficient if the diagrams and measurements togetherindicate clearly what the accused proposed to erect and what was duly approved.
-AlPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Negombo.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with M. H. Aziz, for the accused appellant.
* » » *
B. Wikramanayalce, Q.C., with M. L. 8. Jayasekera, for thecomplainant respondent.
Cur. adv. vuU.
March 2, 1958. Swajt J.—
The accused was charged under section 13 (1) (b) of the Housingand Town Improvement Ordinance with having deviated from the planhe had submitted, and which had been approved by the Chairman ofthe Town Council, in respect of a building he had erected in the townof Minuwangoda. The approved plan is marked PI. It was lateramended by P2. PI is certainly not drawn to scale. That is self-evident ; but there are certain measurements given therein which mustundoubtedly be# t^iken as part and parcel of the plan. It is not deniedthat the building now erected deviates from the measurements containedin PI and P2, and the accused also admits that instead of providingexpanded metal for the rear walls of the kitchens he installed windows.
The defence taken in the lower Court was that the deviations weremade either on the suggestion or with the approval of the prosecutingInspector, and with the consent or acquiescence of the previous Chairmanand the Medical Officer of Health. As the learned Magistrate says inhis judgment this is no defence because any deviation from an approvedplan must be with the written consent of the Chairman.
A good deal'of evidence was led to show that the present Chairmanis not well-disposed towards the accused. But that is wholly irrelevantto the question at issue.
The point urged by Mr. Perera was that the accused could not beguilty of any offence because PI and P2 are not plans but rough sketches.He contends that a plan must be something drawn to scale. I am unableto agree. The Ordinance does not define the word plan. The new
528
SWAN T.—Saheed v. Baptiste
International Dictionary defines plan as “ draft or form, properly arepresentation drawn on a plane as a map …. a grajCric represen-tation, a diagram ”. In Stroud’s Dictionary I find the following :—
PLAN.“ The plan to be submitted to a Local Authority of Works
to be done does not mean something merely showing the ‘ method ’or ‘ manner ’ but means a map or something equivalent, v'riich willenable the Authority to judge whether what is proposed shall be allowedto proceed. ”
<
In my opinion PI and P2 answer that description. They Inay besketches not drawn to scale but they are amply sufficient to show what isproposed to be done. There is a “ ground plan ” which shows the floorspace the rooms will cover. There is a “ cross-section ” which gives anidea of the height of the walls and the roof. There is a “ front elevation ”which is a graphic representation of what the entire building will looklike from the road. There are also certain measurements given ; andif you take the diagrams and measurements together there can be nodoubt as to what the accused proposed to erect and what was dulyapproved. In my opinion the learned Magistrate was rightt.in holdingthat the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged.Perhaps the deviations are innocuous, but that is a matter that will haveto be considered when application is made by the accused for a certificateof conformity, or if the alleged animosity of the present Chairman ismanifested by an application to Court for a mandatory order undersection 13 (2).
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.