CECIL GRAY Vs. CANTONMENT COMMITTEE OF POONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has held in The Cantonment Committee, Poona V/s. Burjorji Bomanji (1889) I.L.R. 14 Bom. 286, relied upon by Mr. Shortt in his able and careful argument in support of this appeal, that a Cantonment Committee, formed under rules framed under the Indian Cantonments Act (XIII of 1889) is a quasi body corporate. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on the correctness of that decision, because the question before us is whether, for the purposes of Section 80 of the Civil P. C., a Cantonment Committee is a "public officer" as defined in Section 2, clause (17) of the Code.

(2.) Under that section, the expression "public officer means (inter alia) "a person", who is an "officer-whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property; on behalf of Government." A Cantonment-Committee is, according to the rules made under Act XIII of 1889," a Cantonment authority," which is charged with the management of a fund called "the Cantonment Fund". That fund is vested in His Majesty by the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, and its management by the Committee is made, by the same section, subject to the control of the Local Government.

(3.) The Committee is, therefore, an artificial person formed by the Statute for the purposes of Cantonment administration.