A. N. VARINA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing a fine of Rs. 10/ -. The Nyaya Panchayat further directed the petitioner to restore a public well which was alleged to have been unlawfully closed by the petitioner by filling up the same with wood, failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay a fine of Re. 1/- till the petitioner restores the well. The petitioner also challenges the correctness of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate affirming the order of the Nyaya Panchayat in the revision filed by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THREE contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner; First, that the petitioner was not served with any notice of the date fixed for the trial of the case and consequently the entire proceedings held before the Nyaya Panchayat were null and void, second, that the offence was not triable by the Nyaya Panchayat inasmuch as the act complained of by the complainant did not constitute a public nuisance within the meaning of Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code which defines public nuisance. The third and the last submission was that in any case the order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat imposing a fine of Re. 1/- per day till the well was restored was clearly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the procedure laid down under section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act was not followed in the present case. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, I find no merit in the first and second contention. The third submission has considerable force and it has to be accepted. ( 4 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, both the courts below have currently found that the notice of the proceeding) was duly served on the petitioner in accordance with rules prescribed for service. The revisional court has observed that the service of notice was witnessed by two individuals, namely, Uma Shanker and Vinaya Kumar. This finding has not been demonstrated to be erroneous or otherwise unsustainable in law. That being so, the first submission fails. The revisional court has observed that the service of notice was witnessed by two individuals, namely, Uma Shanker and Vinaya Kumar. This finding has not been demonstrated to be erroneous or otherwise unsustainable in law. That being so, the first submission fails. ( 5 ) COMING to the second contention the argument of the learned counsel was that the well in question is a private well and consequently any act or omission ascribed to the petitioner in respect thereof could not validly constitute the offence of public nuisance within the meaning of section 268 of the Indian Penal Code. I am unable to agree. The finding of both the courts below that the well is situated in front of the petitioners house and that the inhabitants of the village were drawing water there from for a long time. Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code defines public nuisance as an act or illegal omission which causes a common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy the property in the vicinity. There is no manner of doubt that by the act which is alleged against the petitioner, namely, filling up of the well from which the public at large was drawing water would clearly result in common injury to the public or to the people of the village who dwell or occupy the property in the vicinity of the well. Further there is nothing to indicate that the well in question is the petitioners private well from which the people at large were not drawing water. Even if the well was the private property of the petitioner but the inhabitants of the village were as of right drawing water there-from for a long time, the action of the petitioner complained of would clearly amount to an injury to the public in that it has deprived the inhabitants of the facility of drawing water from that well. I, therefore, find no substance in the second submission either. ( 6 ) THE last submission has considerable merit and must be accepted. Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment for public nuisance lays down that whosoever commits a public nuisance shall be punished with fine which may extend to Rs. 200/ -. I, therefore, find no substance in the second submission either. ( 6 ) THE last submission has considerable merit and must be accepted. Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment for public nuisance lays down that whosoever commits a public nuisance shall be punished with fine which may extend to Rs. 200/ -. Sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Panchayat Raj Act, however, states that a: Nyaya Panchayat may impose fine not exceeding Rs. 250/- but no imprisonment may be awarded in default of payment. Thus, neither section 290 of the Indian Penal Code nor Section 54 of the Panchayat Raj Act which lays down penalties which may be awarded by Nyaya Panchayats contemplates the imposition of any recurring fine such as has been awarded by the Nyaya Panchayat in the present case. Section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act, however, indicates that under certain circumstances such a sentence may be awarded against an accused if found guilty of committing breach of the provisions of the Act of Panchayat Raj Act or any rule or Byelaws made there under. But to m y mind the conditions under which such a fine could be imposed on the petitioner did not exist in the present case. Section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act provides: Disobedience to notice issued. If a notice has been given to a person under the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made there under to a person requiring him to execute a work in respect of any property, movable or immovable, public or private or to provide or do or refrain from doing anything within a time specified in the notice, and such person fails to comply with the notice, then (a) The Gaon Panchayat may cause such work to be executed or such thing to be provided or done, and may recover all expenses incurred by it on such account from the said person in the prescribed manner as arrears of land revenue; (b) such persons shall also be liable on conviction for the Nyaya Panchayat, to a fine which may extend to ten rupees and in case of continuing breach to a further fine which may extend to one rupee for each day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence. In order to invoke the provisions of Section 100 it was necessary to establish that a notice had been given to the petitioner under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act or any rule or bye-laws made there under requiring him to execute any work in respect of any property public or private within a specified time. In the present case no such notice appears to have been given to the petitioner prior to the imposition of fine. The petitioner has categorically stated in the petition that no notice under section 100 was given to the petitioner for executing the work within a specified time. This assertion has not been controverter by the respondents. Indeed they have not filed any counter affidavit. Under Clause (b) of section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act, however, such a fine could be imposed on a person upon conviction before the Nyaya Panchayat. But this conviction is very different from the one, which was made against the petitioner in the present case. There is nothing to indicate in the order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat that it was proceeding to convict the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It appears that it was a case of first offence and not one falling under Clause (b) of Section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, therefore, the imposition of fine of rupee 1/- per day on the petitioner is clearly unsustainable. It would, however, be open to the Gram Panchayat to issue notice against the petitioner under Section 100 and also to proceed to execute the work under Clause (a) of section 100 and recover the expenses incurred by it, in that connection from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. It will also be open to the Nyaya Panchayat, if it so decides, to proceed under Clause (b) of section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act but for that fresh proceedings will have to be taken in accordance with law because a fine under Clause (b) of Section 100 cannot be imposed except upon conviction. ( 8 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. ( 8 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The orders passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in so far as the conviction of the petitioner under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and the imposition of fine of Rs. 10/- are concerned, is affirmed but the rest of the orders passed by these two authorities are quashed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. .