Case: City Of Nagpur Corporation Vs. John Servage Phillip &amp; Anr

of the appellant Corporation to make use of the knowledge gained at the Congress was extremely limited. There are no materials on the record on which this observation can be justified. The appellant Corporation can no doubt increase its capacity. In any event, it would, after the delegation had returned, have been in a better position to discharge its functions concerning public health within its present cape city. It would be absurd to say that the appellant Corporation did not have the capacity to improve its public health services. There was no warrant to issue the writ on the ground of want of capacity.6. The High Court also relied on certain sections dealing with the budget. It was said that there was no provision in the budget for expenses of sending a delegation abroad. Under S. 84 of the incorporating statute, no payment can be made out of the municipal funds unless the expenditure is covered by the budget. The high Court, therefore, observed that the resolution sanctioning expenses for the sending of the delegation abroad was beyond the powers of the appellant Corporation. In the first place, we are not sure that the budget did not provide for such expenses. There was a head in it which dealt with allowances payable to the members of the Corporation. It may reasonably be contended that the expenses of the members for the visit to the Congress are such allowances. But assume, they are not. Section 88 of the Act gives the Corporation power to transfer the amount of one budget grant from one major head to another provided however a certain balance is maintained in the budget. There is nothing to show that the appellant Corporation could not have acted in this case under S. 88 and altered the provisions of the budget making express provision for the expenses of the delegation. It was not even suggested that the appellant Corporation could not do so.7. We think it right also to point out that in the petition for the writ it had not been said that the resolution was bad because the expenses sanctioned by it were outside the budget. That being so, this point should not have been taken into consideration by the High Court. It is true that the Corporation at the request of the High Court placed before the High Court some of the papers in connection with the budget. That the Corporation out of respect to the High Court should have done and, therefore, actually did. From this it cannot be contended that the appellant Corporation never objected to the resolution being challenged on the around of a want of express provision in the budget for the expenses of the delegation or would not have been prejudiced in the hearing of the petition if the resolution was attacked on the ground of want of a provision in the budget. This challenge involved a question of fact and without proper pleadings, the appellant Corporation was surely at a disadvantage in meeting it. Furthermore, we are not sure that S. 84 would have made the resolution invalid. That section only prohibits an expenditure for which the budget does not provide. So it may be that all that S. 84 affects is the actual expenditure. It may not affect the resolution itself.8. We think it right to point out that the High Court held that the appellant Corporation had acted honestly. It observed that the circumstances did not warrant the inference that the action of the Corporation was mala fide. That being so, and the action proposed being clearly within the statutory powers of the appellant Corporation, we think that the High court was in error in issuing the writ.9. We may now notice one or two points of minor importance argued at the bar on behalf of the respondents. It was said that the question raised in this appeal had become academic since the Congress was long over. It may be stated that the Congress was held from April 27 to May 1, 1959 and the writ was issued by the High Court on April 23, 1959. It is suggested that it is not, therefore, a fit case for decision in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We are not at all impressed by this contention. It seems to us that it is a matter of the utmost importance for the appellant Corporation to know its rights under its incorporating statute. It will have to guide itself according to our decision in future when a similar point arises again. If we do not decide the point raised now, then on every subsequent occasion the Corporation would be bound by the judgment of the High Court under appeal and by the time the matter is brought up here the same argument that the question has become academic can always be raised to defeat the point. We think that the point raised by the appellant Corporation as to its powers under the statute and how far courts can review the exercise of its power by the appellant Corporation is of great importance and must be decided in this appeal.10. It is also said that in 1948 when the City of Nagpur Corporation Act was passed, these delegations were not in contemplation. Therefore, S. 58 (s) cannot be interpreted as including promotion of public health by sending of delegations. Thus is, in our view, a completely idle contention. We have no reason to think that the delegations were not sent in 1948.In any case, statutes cannot be confined only to thoughts prevalent at the time when they were enacted. They are put in general words to embrace innovations as they come along. Therefore, even if in 1948, delegations by Corporations were not in contemplation, there is nothing to prevent us interpreting S. 58 (s) as including within matters likely to promote public health, actions involving the sending of delegations where promotion of public health becomes likely as a result thereof.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. We think it right also to point out that in the petition for the writ it had not been said that the resolution was bad because the expenses sanctioned by it were outside the budget. That being so, this point should not have been taken into consideration by the High Court. It is true that the Corporation at the request of the High Court placed before the High Court some of the papers in connection with the budget. That the Corporation out of respect to the High Court should have done and, therefore, actually did. From this it cannot be contended that the appellant Corporation never objected to the resolution being challenged on the around of a want of express provision in the budget for the expenses of the delegation or would not have been prejudiced in the hearing of the petition if the resolution was attacked on the ground of want of a provision in the budget. This challenge involved a question of fact and without proper pleadings, the appellant Corporation was surely at a disadvantage in meeting it. Furthermore, we are not sure that S. 84 would have made the resolution invalid. That section only prohibits an expenditure for which the budget does not provide. So it may be that all that S. 84 affects is the actual expenditure. It may not affect the resolution itself.8. We think it right to point out that the High Court held that the appellant Corporation had acted honestly. It observed that the circumstances did not warrant the inference that the action of the Corporation was mala fide. That being so, and the action proposed being clearly within the statutory powers of the appellant Corporation, we think that the High court was in error in issuing the writ.9. We may now notice one or two points of minor importance argued at the bar on behalf of the respondents. It was said that the question raised in this appeal had become academic since the Congress was long over. It may be stated that the Congress was held from April 27 to May 1, 1959 and the writ was issued by the High Court on April 23, 1959. It is suggested that it is not, therefore, a fit case for decision in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We are not at all impressed by this contention. It seems to us that it is a matter of the utmost importance for the appellant Corporation to know its rights under its incorporating statute. It will have to guide itself according to our decision in future when a similar point arises again. If we do not decide the point raised now, then on every subsequent occasion the Corporation would be bound by the judgment of the High Court under appeal and by the time the matter is brought up here the same argument that the question has become academic can always be raised to defeat the point. We think that the point raised by the appellant Corporation as to its powers under the statute and how far courts can review the exercise of its power by the appellant Corporation is of great importance and must be decided in this appeal.10. It is also said that in 1948 when the City of Nagpur Corporation Act was passed, these delegations were not in contemplation. Therefore, S. 58 (s) cannot be interpreted as including promotion of public health by sending of delegations. Thus is, in our view, a completely idle contention. We have no reason to think that the delegations were not sent in 1948.In any case, statutes cannot be confined only to thoughts prevalent at the time when they were enacted. They are put in general words to embrace innovations as they come along. Therefore, even if in 1948, delegations by Corporations were not in contemplation, there is nothing to prevent us interpreting S. 58 (s) as including within matters likely to promote public health, actions involving the sending of delegations where promotion of public health becomes likely as a result thereof.