Case: Mangulal Chunilal Vs. Manilal Maganlal &amp; Anr

of anything done or omitted to be done by them, respectively, 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 against the Commissioner 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 specified in clause (f) which has been instituted or made in the name of the Corporation or the Commissioner."7. It is not disputed that S. 69 enable the Commissioner to delegate powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon him or vested in him to a municipal officer. The Commissioner having delegated his powers to the Deputy Health Officer, the question arises whether it is the Deputy Health Officer or the Licence Inspector who should take proceedings against the accused within the meaning of S. 481 (1) (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-clause (i) and admit or compromise any claim, suit or legal proceeding within sub-clause (h), but it is said that the word "take" has been deliberately used in sub-cls (a) and (e) to enable the delegate to entrust initiation of proceedings to another person because otherwise it would he impossible to carry on the administration of, the municipality. It is said that thousands 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 because if the word "institute" had been used it may not have been appropriate to cover all proceedings that can be taken under S. 481(1) (a).Bavdekar, J., had observed in 55 Bom LR 377 at p. 379 - (AIR 1953 Bom 365 at p.366):"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."8. We are unable to accept this as correct, Bavdekar, J., further observed :"If the Legislature had in such a case really wanted that the complaint should actully be either of the Commissioner or an officer empowered by him, it would have been perfectly easy to use the 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."9.It is true that it the language suggested by him had been used 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 language.10. The learned counsel for the appellant says that since the decision of the Bombay High Court in 55 Bom LR 377 = (AIR 1953 Bom 365 ) no other decision has taken 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 rights have accrued to parties acting on that view.A person who files a complaint under the Act must show that he has the authority to file that complaint and that authority cannot be conferred upon him by an erroneous interpretation long acquiesced in.This Court held in Ballavdas Agarwala v. J. C. Chakravarty, 1960-2 SCR 739 = (AIR 1980 SC 576) that a complaint under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, could only be filed by the authorities mentioned therein and not by an ordinary citizen. Similarly, here it seems to us that only the authorities mentioned in S. 481, read with S. 69, can launch proceedings against person charged with offences under the Act or the rules regulations or by laws made, under it.This Court noticed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manilal Jethalals case, 55 Bom LR 377 = (AIR 1953 Bom 365 ) in 1960-2 SCR 739 (AIR 1960 SC 576 ) and observed :"The decision proceeded, however, on a somewhat wide meaning given to the words "take proceeding" that part of the decision, as to the correctness of which we say nothing, does not concern us here, because the words used in S. 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act are different."We may mention that Hidayattullah, J., Observed at p. 764 (of SCR) = (at p. 586 of AIR) in Ballavdas Agarwalas case :"An officer of the municipality must himself perform his duties created by statute or bye-law. He cannot delegate them to others, unless expressly authorised in 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."11. We agree with the above observations of Hidayatullah, J. On this point there does not seem to have been any difference of opinion between him and the majority; ho differed only on the question whether on the facts in that case there was in fact a delegation or not.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]7. It is not disputed that S. 69 enable the Commissioner to delegate powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon him or vested in him to a municipalis 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-clause (i) and admit or compromise any claim, suit or legal proceeding within sub-clause (h), but it is said that the word "take" has been deliberately used in sub-cls (a) and (e) to enable the delegate to entrust initiation of proceedings to another person because otherwise it would he impossible to carry on the administration of, the municipality. It is said that thousands 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 because if the word "institute" had been used it may not have been appropriate to cover all proceedings that can be taken under S. 481(1)is true that it the language suggested by him had been used 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 Englishare 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 rights have accrued to parties acting on that view.We agree with the above observations of Hidayatullah, J. On this point there does not seem to have been any difference of opinion between him and the majority; ho differed only on the question whether on the facts in that case there was in fact a delegation or not.