246 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Even though there was a provision regarding giving of prior notice,

this requirement was not heeded by the inspector. The appellant
obstructed the entry of the Sanitary Inspector. The Court held
that the appellant had the right to obstruct the entry of the
inspector as 'the Sanitary Inspector had not done that which the
statute required him to do before he had a right of entry\
Kesho Ram v. Delhi Administration
The Section Inspector of the Municipality went to the house
of the appellant in the discharge of his duty to seize the appellant's
buffalo as he was in arrears of milk tax. The appellant struck the
Inspector on the nose causing a fracture. A criminal case was,
therefore, filed against the appellant. The appellant's main conten -
tion was that the recovery of the tax was illegal inasmuch as no notice
of demand as required by the statute was given to him. Negativing
this contention, the Supreme Court held that the Inspector was
acting in good faith and was honestly exercising his statutory duty
and had * sadly* erred in the exercise of his powers. According
to the Court, the Inspector 'could not be fairly presumed to
know that a notice... .must precede any attempt to seize the
buffalo' and therefore, the right of private defence was not
available to the appellant. Although it appears that the
Bradbury decision was not brought to the notice of the Court,
it could have been distinguished on the ground that in that
case, the appellant had merely obstructed the entry of the Inspector,
whereas in the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant
had assaulted the Inspector. Had he merely obstructed the
entry of the Section Inspector, prpbably, relying upon the Bradbury
decision, he could have justified his action, contending that 'the
Section Inspector had not done that which the statute required
him to do before he had a right of entry'.

80. (1974) 4 SCO 599: AIR 1974 SO 1158.