Mohamed Mirza, J.- This case was referred to a Bench by one of us sitting singly. The question that arose for determination was whether the Executive Authority, if he starts proceedings under section 216 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) against a person, will he be barred from filing a complaint under section 199 of the same Act against a person who has violated the provisions of the Act under Chapter X? For an appreciation of this point, the facts have to be kept in mind. A complaint was filed by the Commissioner of Cuddapah Municipality on the alligation that the respondent commenced a construction of a wall running from north to south for a building in the vacant site to the east of door No. 13/26 in the Badarkhan Masid Street of Cuddapah town without obtaining permission from the Executive Authority of the Said Municipality. Thereby he committed an offence under section 199 read with section 317 (a) of the Act. The respondent was examined by the trial Court and he pleaded “not guilty” to the charge and stated that the wall that was constructed was a partition wall between himself and one Mohammad Hussain and this he got constructed with the help of an Amin of the Court and a Police Constable as per the decree of the District Munsif’s Court, Cuddapah, dated 18th January, 1962. He further stated that he stopped the construction of the wall and has sent the plans to the Commissioner for approval. The Inspector, who has examined himself as P.W.1, noticed the unlawful construction on 5th December, 1962 when he was going on inspection accompanied by his maistry (P.W. 2). He duly verified this fact that the construction was unlawful and gave a report to the Commissioner, Exhibit P-1. Afterwards he issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 6th December, 1962 under Exhibit P-2 which was served on the respondent on 7th December, 1962. The respondent replied to this notice under Exhibit P-3 on 10th December, 1962. After the reply was received, no further action was taken by the Executive Authority. Instead, after obtaining sanction of the Commissioner under section 347 of the said Act, a complaint was filed against the respondent. In the course of the trial, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined by the Bench of the Magistrates before whom this case came up. After the reply was received, no further action was taken by the Executive Authority. Instead, after obtaining sanction of the Commissioner under section 347 of the said Act, a complaint was filed against the respondent. In the course of the trial, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined by the Bench of the Magistrates before whom this case came up. The respondent was acquitted by the Court on two grounds: firstly, that there was a discrepancy between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to the height of the wall that was raised; and secondly, that notices under section 216 (1) and (2) were issued to the respondent and, therefore, the prosecution; should have been launched under section 216 read with Section 317 of the Act. We are inclined to think that the first ground on which the acquittal is based is wholly unsustainable. The respondent himself has admitted in his examination under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, that he had raised the wall. If there is any discrepancy with regard to the height of the wall, that would not make the evidence of these two witnesses suspicious. Both of them have stated that the height of the wall was 10 feet. The only difference is that, P.W.1 had stated that the measurements were taken from the northern side of the wall from the road level while P.W. 2, the rnaistry has not clearly stated how the measurements were taken. But the Court was inclined to take the view that P.W. 2 had stated that the measurements were taken from ground level which we failed to detect in his evidence. Therefore, we think that this argument of the lower Court about the discrepancy with regard to the height of the wall is irrelevant. With regard to the second ground that the prosecution should have been launched under section 216 read with section 317 of the Municipalities Act, we are satisfied that this view is incorrect. Section 199 of the Act is in the following words: "The construction or reconstruction of a building shall not be begun unless and until the Executive Authority has granted permission for the execution of the work." A contravention or violation of this provision exposes the person who has acted in that manner to a penalty prescribed under section 317 of the same Act. Therefore, we think that the contravention of the provisions of section 199 gives rise to the commission of an offence for which a penalty has been duly prescribed. Section 216 reads as follows: "216. (1) If the Executive Authority is satisfied- (i) that the construction or reconstruction of any building or wall- (a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the Executive Authority or (where an appeal or reference has been made to the council, in contravention of any order passed by the council, or (b) ............ (c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made under this Act or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act or such rules or bye-laws, or (ii) that any alterations required by any notice issued under section 205 have not been duly made, or (iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in, to or upon any building, has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in breach of section 215,— he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the builder to demolish the work done or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Executive Authority, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alterations as may in the opinion of the Executive Authority be necessary to bring the work into conformity with the Act, bye-laws, rules, direction or requisition as aforesaid, or with the plans and particulars on which such permission or order was based; and may also direct that unti1 the said order is complied with the owner or builder shall refrain from proceeding with the building or wall. (2) The Executive Authority shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner of the building or wall together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (2) The Executive Authority shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner of the building or wall together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (3) If the owner fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Executive Authority the Executive Authority may confirm the order with any modification he may think fit to make and such order shall then be binding on the owner." Clearly this provision authorised the Executive Authority to take any action against: a person who constructs a building without obtaining permission from the proper authorities and it has also laid down the procedure that has to be followed by the Executive Authority in taking a final decision. The argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is that once an Executive Authority starts proceedings. under section 216 of the Act, he cannot act under Section 199. In our opinion, both the sections are quite independent. As we have stated earlier, contravention of the provisions of section 199 is a penal offence while section 216 only speaks how an Executive Authority has to act in cases where unlawful construction has been made. No doubt, the Executive Authority, after serving notice on the respondent under Exhibit P-2, did not proceed further and did not confirm the order which was necessary to complete the proceedings under the said section. But, we think that the Executive Authority is competent to change its mind and resort to the other remedy open to him under section 199 which was actually done in this case. Failing to take action under section 216 of the Act does not bar any proceedings that may be started under section 199. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on two decisions: Kalliani Kutty Amma v. Kerala State1and Mayandi Chettiar v. Madura Municipality2. We do not think it necessary to discuss these rulings because we are clear in our mind that both the rulings are beside the point and do not help the learned Counsel. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we think that the view taken by he trial Court that the complaint filed by the Commissioner of Municipality under section 199 is void cannot be sustained. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we think that the view taken by he trial Court that the complaint filed by the Commissioner of Municipality under section 199 is void cannot be sustained. We hold that the prosecution has proved that it was an unlawful construction for which the respondent can rightly be convicted under section 317 read with section 199 of the Act and convict him accordingly. The respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 and in default of payment he will undergo one week’s simple imprisonment. The appeal is allowed. A.B.K. ------ Appeal allowed; Accused convicted.