LAWS(PVC)-1921-11-94

MULJI TRIBHOVAN SEVAK Vs. DAKOR MUNICIPALITY

Decided On November 18, 1921
MULJI TRIBHOVAN SEVAK Appellant
V/S
DAKOR MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think the question referred to the Full Bench should be answered in the affirmative. There can be no doubt that a Municipality has appellate and revisional powers over orders passed by the Managing Committee, or by a Committee appointed under Section 28 or 29, other than orders under Sub-section 3 of Section 65, which powers are to be exercised in accordance with the rules framed under Section 46. Whether those powers have been properly exercised is a question which must be decided in each case on its merits. Shah, J.

(2.) I would answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative, subject to the qualification that the cancellation or revocation is otherwise consistent with the provisions of Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipal Act of 1901.

(3.) In the present case the power to deal with notice under Section 96 is delegated to the Public Works Committee and the delegation is subject to revision and appeal as provided by Section 36(2) and the rules of the Dakor Municipality framed under Section 46 of that Act. So far as the General Board of the Municipality can exercise the power vested in them, consistently with the provisions of Section 96, undoubtedly that body may do so. It may be that owing to the lapse of time or anything that may have happened in consequence, of the leave granted by the Committee or any other reason there may be difficulty in the way of exercising those powers effectively. But the Municipality have the legal right to exercise the powers of revision and appeal within the limits allowed by the statute and the rules thereunder.