JUDGMENT Petitioner was fined in the sums of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 250/- under the two orders issued by the Administrator of the Notified Area Committee, Kotma (for short, the 'Committee') constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, for short, the 'Act', for alleged illegal construction without sanction. The Committee then approached the Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol by an application under section 165 of the Act for recovery of the fine together with a penalty of Rs. 10/- per day. The recovery sought was for a total sum of Rs. 9,690/- vide application, Annexure P/2. The Magistrate then passed the impugned order dated 10.11.1982 (Annexure P/3) directing issuance of an attachment warrant for recovery of the amount of fine and penalty of Rs. 10/- per day. Against the recovery proceedings, earlier, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition, being M.P. No. 1181 of 1984 which was dismissed summarily by the order passed on 5.5.1984 (Annexure R/8, filed with the Return). After dismissal of the earlier petition, the present petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings. Shri N.C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on Nagar Palika Bhander v. Rajendra Singh ( 1970 JLJ 811 ) in support of his contention that the power to impose fine for alleged illegal construction rests only in the Magistrate under section 313 (2) of the Act. The Administrator of the Committee had no power to impose any fine. The second ground urged is that the two orders passed by the Administrator which are on record as Annexure R/4 and R/5, do not show that any separate penalty at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day was imposed. He submitted that in any case, the recovery of penalty at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day is wholly without jurisdiction and is not supported by the impugned orders on record. Shri S.L. Saxena, learned counsel appears for the Committee and raises a preliminary objection that the present petition is barred by constructive res judicata as the points urged in the present petition could have been, but have not been urged in the earlier writ petition. The learned counsel Shri Saxena, appearing for the Municipal Council, however, concedes and could not dispute the fact that the recovery of Rs. 10/- per day as penalty is not supported from any document on record. The learned counsel Shri Saxena, appearing for the Municipal Council, however, concedes and could not dispute the fact that the recovery of Rs. 10/- per day as penalty is not supported from any document on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petition only partially succeeds. The recovery proceedings initiated and continuing against the petitioner for recovery of the fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 250/- under the two orders (Annexure R/4 and R/5) and by the Magistrate under Annexure P/3, may go on, if not already paid. The order of the Magistrate (Annexure P/3) dated 10.11.1982, in so far as it directs recovery also of penalty of Rs. 10/- per day, is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Balance of the amount of security be refunded to the petitioner.