MANGULAI CHUNILAL v. MANILAL MAGANLAL & ANR.
Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 401; 1967 INSC 271
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.M. SIKRI , J.M. SHELAT, K.S. HEGDE
Judgment date:
Case summary
1967 INSC 271. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1967-11-23. MANGULAI CHUNILAL v. MANILAL MAGANLAL & ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
-I 0 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1%8] 2 S C. R. MANGULAI, CHUNILAL v. MAMLAL MAGANLAL & ANR. November 23. 1967 (S M. S! KRI. K. S. HEGDE AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ. J Bo111ha_l Pn11·i11cial Af1111icipal Corporation Act, 1949 ss. 69 and 481-- Filing of Co111plaint. lrho can-"Take proceedj. 11gs," n1ec. ,ning of. The appellant-licence inspector, filed a complaint against the res- Pondent. The appellant had obtained permission to file the complaint from the Deputy Health Officer, "{ho had been delegated the powers under s. 69(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation .. Act, 1949, by the Municipal Commissioner. The respondent was convicted. but, the High Court in revision, set aside the conviction. Jn appeal tO this Court.
the appellant contended that there was no limiting words in the order delegating the power to the Deputy Health Officer that he should file a complaint himself and not authorise others; and that power to take proceedings includes power to authorise others to institute pro~ ceedings in the context of the Act. Dismissing the appeal. HELD ; Only the authorities mentioned in s. 48·1 read with s. 69 could launch proceedings. a_gainst persons chaTgcd with offt10ces under the Act or the rule.. ". regulations or bye-laws made under it. A person who files a complaint under the Act must show that he has the authority to file that con1plaint and that authority cannot be conferred upon bv an erroneous interpretat~on long acquiesced. f406 D-Fl The word the extent to which any municipal oflicer is "' empowered the word "Commissioner" and the words "Transport Manager" occurring in any provision in this Act. shall he deemed to include such officer. S. 481.
( 1) The Commissioner may- R ( a) take, or withdraw from proccedinl! s against any person who is charged with- ( i) any offence against this Act or any rule. regulation or by-law; (ii) any offence which affects or is likely to affect any property or interest of the Corporation or the due administration of this Act; (iii) committing any nui>ance whatever; I h) compound ariy offence against this Act or any rule, regulation or by-law which under the law for the time being in force may legally be compounded; ( c) defend any election petition brouμht under section 16; (d 1 defend. :1dmit or compromise anv appeal against a rateable value or tax brought und~r section • 406; (e) take, withdraw from or compromi;e. proceedings under sub-section ( 2) of section 402.
sub-sections ( 3) and ( 4) of section 439 and sections 391 and 416 for the recovery of expenses or compensation claimed to be due to the Corporation; (f) withdraw or compromise any clainl for a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees against any person in respect of a penalty payable under a contract en-tered into with such person by the Commissioner, or. with the approval of the Standing Committee. any such claim for any sum exceeding five hundred rupees; (g) defend any suit or other legal proceedin)! s brought al! ainst the Corporation or against the Commissioner or a municipal officer or servant in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by them. respec-tively. in their official capacity; (h) with the approval of the Standing Committee. admit or compromise any claim. suit or legal proceeding brought against the Corporation or aμainst the Com- MANGCLAL v. MANILAL (Sikri, J.
) 405' missioner or a municipal officer or servant, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done as aforesaid; (i) with the like approval, institute and prosecute any suit or withdraw. from or compromise any suit or any claim other than a claim of the description speci-fied in clause (f), which has been instituted or made in ! he name of the Corporation or the Commissioner;. " It is not disputed that s. 69 enables the Commissioner to dele-· gate powers duties or functions conferred or imposed upon him' or vested in him to a municipal officer. The Commissioner hav-i;ig delegated his powers to the Deputy lJealth Officer, the, question arises whether it is the Deputy Health Officer or the . Licenc~ Inspector who. should take proceedings against ihe accused within the meaning of s. 481 ( l )(a). It is not disputed that . under sub-cls. (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of s.
481(1), the various actions contemplated in these sub-clauses would have to be taken by the delegate himself. In other words, he would have to institute a suit within sub-cl. ( i) and admit or compromise any claim, suit or legal proceeding within sub-cl. (h), but it is said that the word "take" has been deliberately used in sub-els. (a) and (e) to enable the delegate fo entrust initiation of proceedings to an-other person because otherwise it would be impossible to carry on the administration of the municipality. It is said that thou-sands of complaints have to be filed and it would be casting undue burden on the Deputy Health Officer to sign all the complaints. We are not impressed by this argument. It is true that the word· "take" has various meanings but no dictionary or authority has been placed before us to show that the word can mean "cause to be taken". It seems to us that the word "take" was used be-· cause.
if the word "institute" had been used it may not have been appropriate to cover all proceedings that can be taken under s. 48l(l)(a). Bavdakar, J. , had observed in The State v. Manila/ Jetha-la/(1) : "One can see easily why the words "take" are used. It was desired to combine in one clause the two powers, the power to launch proceedings and the power to withdraw proceedings, and if the words "withdraw from proceedings" were used, it was not easy to use the words "order proceedings to be taken" in combination with the words "withdraw proceedings. " We are unable to accept this as correct. Bavdekar, J. , further observed: (! ) (1953) 55 ll. L. R. 177-1°9. 406 'l<l'RLME COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 'CIC "If the Legislature had in such a case . really wanted that 1he complaint should actually be either of the Commissioner or an officer empowered by him, i!
would have been perfectly easy to use 1he words which find place in several Acts, for example, "except upon a complaint in writing of the Commissioner or an officer to whom he has delegated his powers. " It is true that if the language suggested by him had been u,ed no dispute would have arisen. But we are not free to interpret the words "take proceedings" to mean "order proceedings to be taken" because the word "take" is an English word and we can only ascribe to it a meaning which it bears in the English languaj! e. The learned counsel for the appellant says that since the decisien of the Bombay High Court in The State v. Mani/al Je1halal(1) no other decision has t ·ken any other view and we should not disturb the view which has prevailed since that decision. We are unable to accept this contention. This is not a case where a series of decisions have taken a particular view and that view has been widely accepted and various right• have accrued :o par-ties acting on that view.
A person who tiles a complaint under the Act must show that he has the au1hori1y 10 file that complaint and that authoriy cannot be conferred upon him by an erroneous intcrrre:aiion Jon~ acquiesced in. This Court held in /Ja/1. 1;,Jm A i? arwa/a v. J. C. Chakravarty (') that a complaint under the Calcutta Municip;il Act. I 923, could only be filed by the authorities mentioned therein and not by an ordinary citizen. Simi-larly, here it seems to L" that only the authorities mentioned in '- 481, read with s. 69. can launch proceedings against persons charged with offences under the Act or the rules. regulations or bye-laws made under it. This Court noticed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manila/ lethalars ca. w•(1) in Bnllal'flas Aganvala v. J. C. Clrakravarty(') and observed:· "Tlte decision proceeded. however, on a somewhat wide meanin!! g;vcn to the words 'take proceedings' that part of the decision. as to the corrcctnes<; of which we say nothing.
docs not concern us here, because the wwds used in s. 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act are different. " We may mention that Hidayatullah, J. , observed at p. 76-l in Ra//avdar Agarwala's case(') : "An officer of the municipality must himself perform his duties created by statute or bye-law. He cann01 II delegate them to others, unless expressly authorised in - . - 11) (IQ<:l) <i( H l. R. 177. 379 12)[t96('J2SC'R '19. MANGULAL V. MANILAL (Sikri, J. ) 40 7 A this behalf. The Act does not so empower the officers to delegate their functions in their turn, and thus an officer to whom the power is delegated by the Chairman must perform them himself. " We agree with the above observations of Hidayatullah. J. On this point there does not seem to have been any difference of B opinion between him ancl the majority; he differed only on the question whether on th~ . acts in that case there was in fact a delegation or not.
For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the appeal and maintain the order passed by the High Court. Y. P. Appeal dismiueJ ..
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.