A that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public, or from any public place, or that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, i~ injurious to the health or B physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated, or that the construction of any building, or the disposal of any substance, as likely to occasion conflagration or exploc sion, should be prevented or stopped, or that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair, D or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary, such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods; E to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation; or to prevent or stop the erection of, or to remove, repair or support, such building, tent or structure. F It is clear from the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional MagiS·· trate that the evidence disclosed that the smoke emitted by the chimney constructed by the appellant was "injurious to the health and physical! comfort of the people living or working in the proximity" of the appel .. !ant's bakery and that there was no justification on the part of the appellant for discharging the smoke from the chimney on the G. T .. G Road. The learned Magistrate had made a local inspection on the basis of which he prepared a report dated February 11, 1970. That report and the photo-print Exh. 'A', show that the upper horizonta~ portion of the chimney constructed by the appellant juts out into tho G. T. Road to the extent of about six feet. Considering the nature of this construction and the volume of smoke emitted by it the learned II Magistrate concluded that the chimney was not only an encroachment upon a public place but its construction led to a graver consequence. Allowing the use of the oven and the chimney was, according to the
