JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule to show cause why an order of the Municipal Magistrate directing the demolition of a shed erected by the Petitioner without the sanction of the Corporation should not be set aside. The General Committee appears to have applied to the Municipal Magistrate under sec. 449(1) for an order for the demolition of the shed, which comes within the definition of "building." The Magistrate has found that it was erected without sanction, which is indeed admitted by the Petitioner. He has therefore passed the order complained of. 2. We can see no reason why the Magistrate's order is illegal. It seems to be in accordance with the provisions of secs. 372 and 449 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 3. The learned pleader for the Petitioner contends that the Corporation issued a notice to his client under sec. 383, that the Petitioner replied to this notice and was not given an opportunity of showing cause or of appealing to the General Committee. The learned pleader who appears for the Corporation urges that even if this be so, this would only invalidate an order directing the building to be constructed of non-inflammable materials and that no such order has been passed. He further argues that no notice under sec. 383 is necessary before an order under sec. 449 (1) directing the demolition of the building can be passed. This would appear to be the case. 4. Nothing in the Municipal Act has been pointed out to us which prohibits the passing of an order under sec. 449 (1) for the demolition of a building erected without sanction in contravention of the provisions of sec 372 without the precedent issue of a notice under sec. 383 and it has been expressly held in Corporation of Calcutta v. Amrita Lal Mukherjee (1) that the issue of a notice under sec. 383 is not a condition precedent to a proceeding under sec. 449 (1). The rule is accordingly discharged.