Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, May 17, 2005

About Us
Contact Us
Metro Plus Bangalore
Published on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays & Saturdays

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Entertainment | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

Metro Plus    Bangalore    Chennai    Hyderabad   

Printer Friendly Page Send this Article to a Friend

We move on, noisily

Blaring music, screaming neighbours, dogs barking non-stop, anything is allowed in today's neighbourhoods. But at one time, bullock carts with jangling trappings were slapped with a fine



OLD BEAUTY Bangalore once was full of cars like this one photo: G.R.N. Somashekar

A bullock cart trotting past with bells or any other noisy trappings was a punishable offence with a fine of Rs. 5. This was a provision made by the Civil and Military Station byelaws. The trappings were liable to be confiscated.

In March 1886, two Municipal councillors of the Bangalore Town Municipality were fined Rs.10 each by the Magistrate of Civil and Military station for having failed to whitewash the compound walls of their houses in the Civil and Military Station, despite notices. A peculiar incident in the lighting contract took place in 1880 in the Cantonment Municipality. The President of the Municipality, Dr. Orr had called for tenders for street lighting. M/s Nanjappa Brothers, in their tender, had proposed to work on each street lamp at the cost of Rs. 1.02 per month. But the president felt that the rate was low and proposed that the contractor be allowed Rs. 1.08 per month. Except one, Councillor T.T. Leonard, all others agreed to the proposal. But when this was brought to the notice of the Chief Commissioner, he not only declined to sanction the rate but also urged the board members to discharge their duties responsibly. These two incidents show the vigilance of the powers-that-be against breach of rules.

Lighter moments

On the lighter side, when Viceroy Dufferin came to Bangalore in 1886, the Cantonment Municipality decided to give him a civic address. The president of the Municipality, Major Malthy, observed that it would be appropriate if all native Municipal councillors appeared in one uniform, viz., white lace turban, long coat, trousers and English boots. Taking advantage of this proposal, the merchants of Commercial Street raised the price of the cloth.

In 1881, under the Ninth Article of the instrument of transfer, the British Government secured the entire area from the erstwhile Maharaja for the purpose of a British Cantonment. Though the Maharaja ceded the civil jurisdiction over the area to the government of British India, the sovereignty over the tract rested with him. After the Government of India charge over the administration of the station, the area began to develop. The British Resident of Mysore used to run the administration with the assistance of a European ICS official as Collector and District Magistrate. (P.M. Jayarajan, ICS) was the first Indian to be appointed Collector and District Magistrate of Bangalore Cantonment. He was popularly known as `poor man's Collector' and was responsible for the construction of several colonies to house poor people and also for carrying out a campaign against tuberculosis in the State.)

The Court of the Resident functioned as a High Court for the station, with a right of appeal to the Privy Council. British Indian laws were not applicable to the tract since it formed a part of the territory of Mysore. Laws were applied by the Governor General in Council, under Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council 1902. In 1935, the authority over the station passed from the hands of the Governor General in Council to the Crown representative, who, under his powers derived from the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, an act of the British Parliament, applied laws to the station and got them administered by tribunals.

Ever since the cession of jurisdiction over the area in 1881, the Mysore Durbar pressed for the payment of surplus revenues of the assigned tract. And after prolonged negotiations, a settlement was arrived in the year 1925 by which it was decided that any surplus revenue in excess of Rs.13 lakh, the datum line representing the normal annual expenditure of the tract, was to be divided between the station and Durbar in the proportion of a fourth to the former and three-fourths to the latter, and at the end of 10 years this issue to be taken for reconsideration.

S. SRINIVAS

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Metro Plus    Bangalore    Chennai    Hyderabad   

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Entertainment | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

Comments to : thehindu@vsnl.com   Copyright © 2005, The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu