JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in a proceeding under a Section 385A of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short the Act), is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant-municipality is that the Petitioner had made unauthorised constructions, without requisite permission from the municipality, thereby attracting culpability under the provisions of Section 385A of the Act. The Petitioner's stand was that the construction was made after obtaining due permission from the municipality; there was no notice served before initiation of the proceeding which was in violation of the provisions of Section 273A of the Act; and in any event the Petitioner having acted bona fide the proceeding is not maintainable. 3. On consideration of the materials, particularly the admission of the Petitioner in his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that he had no document showing accord of permission the stand that the construction was authorised, was not tenable. Similarly, the plea of non-receipt of notice was disbelieved on consideration of the fact that the Petitioner bad submitted a reply in response to the show-cause notice issued by the municipality. Having found the Petitioner guilty, the learned trial magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. . 4. In support of the revision application, it has been strenuously urged that the conduct of the municipality itself goes to show that it had led the Petitioner to believe that permission had been granted, it is also additionally urged that the Additional Executive Officer had .no competence to file the prosecution report and, therefore, the proceeding was rendered otiose on account of unauthorised initiation of the proceeding. Reliance was placed for this purpose on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No, 152 of 1985 (disposed of on 4-5-1990). The fine imposed was characterised as heavy. Mr. Y.S.N. Murty, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the presumption of permission is not available in view of the specific provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed for this purpose on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No, 152 of 1985 (disposed of on 4-5-1990). The fine imposed was characterised as heavy. Mr. Y.S.N. Murty, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the presumption of permission is not available in view of the specific provisions of the Act. Further, the ratio of the decision in the case referred to above by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no application, because in the said case the prosecution report was submited by the Town Surveyor, and the trial Court had recorded a finding regarding absence of authorisation on behalf of the said functionary of the municipality to initiate the prosecution. It was also submitted that fine as imposed is rather liberal considering the limits indicated by the statute. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. I feel it would be desirable to refer to certain provisions of the Act. Section 264 deals with desirability of an application before any construction is undertaken. Section 266 puts an absolute prohibition against commencement of work for construction or re-construction of a building without permission by the Executive Officer. Section 267 indicates that the Executive Officer has to dispose of the application, either granting or refusing to grant permission within a period of 30 days, after receipt of any application made u/s 264 by a written order, either granting such permission or refusing on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 269. If the permission or the refusal to grant permission is not dealt with by the Executive Officer within 30 days, the applicant has the option to move the municipal council u/s 268 of the Act and the municipal council on receipt of such application shall consider whether approval or permission should be given or not. If the council within one month from the date of receipt of the written request does not deal with the matter, a presumption of the permission having been granted in favour of the applicant arises and the applicant is authorised to proceed to execute the work but not so as to contravene any other provisions of the Act or any rules or bye-laws made under the Act. Admittedly, in this case the Petitioner made no application to the council indicating inaction by the Executive Officer within the stipulated period of 30 days and, therefore, any question of presumption of granted permission for construction does not stand to reason, Section 273A deals with the powers of the Executive Officer to initiate a proceeding for prosecution of the person making unauthorised construction or for demolition of the unauthorised portion of the construction. Where the Executive Officer proposes to act u/s 273A, he has to pass a provisional order requiring the owner of the building to demolish the work done, or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, has been unlawful1y executed or to make such alteration as in the opinion of the Executive Officer, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alteration as may be necessary in the opinion of the Executive Officer to bring the work into conformity with the Act, bye-laws, rules, direction or requisition as indicated, or with the plans and particulars on which such permission or order was based. He has the discretion to direct the owner or builder to refrain from proceeding with the construction until compliance of the order. A copy of the provisional order is requited to be served on the owner of the building together with a notice to show cause within a reasonable time as to why the order shall not he confirmed. If the owner fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer, the Executive Officer may confirm the order with any modification as he thinks fit and such order shall then be binding on the Owner. Section 385A deals with penalty for - unlawful construction and provides that if construction or reconstruction of any building is commenced without permission of the Executive Officer, the Owner of the building shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend, in the case of a building to five hundred rupees and with further stipulation for further fine which may extend to Rs. 100/- per day, during the period for which the offence is proved to have continued after the first day. 6. As facts of the present case show the construction was unauthorised and no permission as required under the provisions of the Act had been granted by the Executive Officer. 100/- per day, during the period for which the offence is proved to have continued after the first day. 6. As facts of the present case show the construction was unauthorised and no permission as required under the provisions of the Act had been granted by the Executive Officer. The reasonings indicated by the learned trial magistrate suffer from no infirmity and there is honecessity for interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 7. So far as the plea that prosecution was launched by a person not authorised, it appears that the prosecution report was submitted by the Additional Executive Officer and it has not been shown as to how he was authbrised to launch prosecution. On the contrary, in the case on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it has been specifically observed that the Additional Executive Officer is competent to initiate prosecution. In any event, such a plan was not taken in the Court below and, therefore, it had no opportunity to deal with the matter. The contention is untenable. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial magistrate. 8. In the result, the criminal revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed