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

2. The relevant facts are not now in dispute and are as follows : On October 10, l963, Mangulal Chunilal, licence inspector, filed a complaint against Manilal Maganlal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, alleging that the accused had carried on the work of blacksmith by manufacturing machinery, spare parts and the safe cupboards, without obtaining licence. At the end of the complaint it washave obtained permission for filing this complaint from the Medical Officer of Health by order No. dated 1st October,licence inspector had applied to the Deputy Health Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to accord permission to file the complaint as offence under S. 392 (1)(a) of the Act had been committed. The Deputy Health Officer notedis granted under S. 48l (l)(a) of Chapter 30 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act of 1949 to file complaint for the offence committed in breach of the provisions of law as shown in the aboveDeputy Health Officer (including Deputy Health Officer, Food and Licence Branch) had been delegated certain powers under S. 69 (1) of the Act by the Municipal Commissioner. The powers delegated to the Deputy Health Officer includeto take proceedings against any person who is charged with : Section 481(1)(a) (i)(iii).Any offence.(i) Under Section 392(i) and/or 392(2) of the B.P.M.C. Act 1949 for breach of provisions mentioned in section below : 164, 184 (1)(a), 233(1), 297, 376, 377(1), 381, 383, 384".It was contended before the High Court that the complaint had been filed by the Licence Inspector whereas the delegation under S. 69 of the Act was to the Deputy Health Officer to take proceedings as provided in S. 481 of the Act. It was contended that the expression "take proceedings" in S. 481 means instituting a complaint and does not mean causing a complaint to be filed Raju, J., who heard the revision, accepted this contention. He declined to follow the judgment of the Bombay High Court in The State v. Manilal Jethalal, 55 Bom LR 377 = (AIR 1953 Bom 365  ) in which it had been held that the words "take proceedings" meant "order proceedings to be taken".

Court's reasoning:
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.