JUDGMENT 1. From the findings in this case it appears that the Petitioner built a part of his house over part of a public road, twenty feet long by ten broad. For this he has been fined under a bye-law of the Shahabad District Board, but has obtained a rule to show cause why his conviction should not be set aside. The first and the important ground for this rule is that the bye-law is ultra, virus. It is in these terms "whoever encroaches on any road by cultivating crops, or by pouching it up for cultivation, or by the construction of any building or structure thereon except by the permission of the Chairman of the District Board, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 50, and to a further fine not exceeding Rs. 2 for every day on which the offence is continued." It is made under sec. 139 of the Bengal Local Self-Government Act III of 1885, which gives the Board power to "make bye-laws for carrying out all or any of the purposes of this Act." The only purpose of the Act for the carrying out of which it is suggested that the bye-law has been made is that indicated in sec. 78, which enacts that it is "the duty of every District Board to provide for the repair and maintenance of roads, &c." This makes the repair and maintenance of roads a purpose of the Act, and the question we have to decide is whether the present bye-law can be said to carry out that purpose. In our opinion it can. To repair is to remedy a defect; to maintain is to prevent that defect arising. If a road, or any part of a road, is cultivated, ploughed up or built over, maintenance becomes impossible, and repairs necessary, unless indeed reconstruction takes their place. In any case a purpose of the Act seems to be interfered with, and as the bye-law tends to check the acts mentioned, it may be said to carry out the purpose. It must be observed, however, that the acts contemplated in the bye-law are assumed to be permanent in their effect and to injure the fabric of the road, otherwise they would not be covered by the terms of the bye-law. 2. It is to be observed that the Bengal Municipal Act III of 1884, sec. It must be observed, however, that the acts contemplated in the bye-law are assumed to be permanent in their effect and to injure the fabric of the road, otherwise they would not be covered by the terms of the bye-law. 2. It is to be observed that the Bengal Municipal Act III of 1884, sec. 217, provides a punishment for encroachments such as that in this case, and it has been argued that this shows that the power to prosecute given by this bye-law was intentionally withheld from District Boards. In the view we take of the matter, however, the powers of the District Board are much narrower than those of the Municipal authority, which deprives this argument of much of its force. We have treated this case as one not covered by authority, in spite of a decision by this Court in the opposite way in the case of Ramnath Ghost v. Emperor 11 C. W. N. clxxv (1907), Criminal Revision No. 190 of 1907, recently decided. That case, however, was decided by one of the Judges constituting this Bench sitting alone, and without the advantage of any one appearing to show cause against the rule. A second ground for the rule was that it contained a continuing penalty. The explanation of the Magistrate shows however that the only penalty that he intended to inflict was a fine of Rs. 50, and that the rest of the order is merely a warning as to the result of not complying with the Magistrate's order. Taking this view of it there is no reason for us to interfere. The rule is therefore discharged.