EMPEROR Vs. JESINGBHAI CHHAGANLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order made by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The applicant was convicted under Section 186 (2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (XVIII of 1925), which provides that if it be shown to the satisfaction of the standing committee that certain acts have been done, the standing committee may by notice require the owner or occupier of the properties concerned to take certain action, and if the action is not taken, the owner or occupier may be prosecuted. In the present case a notice under the section was served upon the applicant complaining of an act which falls within Sub- section (r) of Section 186 (1), and that notice was served by or at the instance of the sanitary committee and not the standing committee which is the committee named in the section, and on that ground it is contended that the conviction is invalid. Section 37 of the Act provides for the appointment of a standing committee and Sub-section (2) enacts that the standing committee shall exercise the functions allotted to it under the Act, and subject to any limitations prescribed by the Municipality especially in this behalf or generally by rules made under cl, (a) of Section 58, shall exercise all the powers of the Municipality. So that under that section the standing committee is required to exercise the functions allotted to it under the Act and also the residuary powers of the Municipality which have not been validly delegated to some other body. Then Section 38 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 37, sub-s, (2), other committees may be appointed to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Municipality and the standing committee shall not exercise any powers or perform any duties which such committee has been appointed to exercise or perform.

(2.) I agree with the contention of the applicant that the power to delegate under Section 38 is confined to what I have called the residuary powers of the Municipality exercisable by the standing committee and does not apply to the special functions which are allotted to the standing committee under the Act. But when we come to Section 58 (a) it is provided that a Municipality shall make rules not inconsistent with this Act regulating the conduct of its business and the delegation of any of its powers or duties to any committee or to the Chief Officer or the powers or duties of any committee to any other committee or to the Chief Officer. It seems to me that the section does in terms give power to Municipalities to make a rule delegating the powers or duties of one committee to another committee and under that section the Municipality is competent to make a rule delegating a power or duty allotted by the Act to the standing committee to some other committee. In the present case the Municipality has made a rule to that effect, viz., rule 73, which appoints the sanitary committee the controlling and executive committee in all matters relating to the department of public health. In my opinion under that rule the sanitary committee is competent to take the action which it did take in this case under Section 186. That being so, I think the rule must be discharged. N.J. Wadia, J.

(3.) I agree.