STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CAMBAY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after staling the facts further observed:-] ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(2.) Mr. Mehta however very strongly pressed into service the provisions of sec. 262 of the Act (Gujarat Municipalities Act) sub-sec. (1) of which is reproduced below :-

(3.) Mr. Zaveri for the respondent-municipality however very vehemently contended that because of the subsequent provisions of sub-secs. (2) and (3) of sec. 262 of the Act the scope and ambit of sub-sec. (1) should be treated as limited in character. In his submission the Legislature contemplated the appointment of some agency by the Director and the involvement of expenses and remuneration went to suggest very clearly that some step through the intervention of some such third agency was the sine qua non of the discharge of the duty or the performance of the duty contemplated by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 262 of the Act. We are not in a position to accept this submission of Mr. Zaveri because sub-secs. (2) and (3) are procedural in character. The substantive power that is conferred on the State Government is to be found in sec. 262 (1) and if without recourse to those ancillary and subsequent steps the said power could be exercised it is perfectly within the competence of the State Government to act under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 262.