Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
29th November, 1962.
S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, A.K SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
The City of Nagpur Corporation, Nagpur, Appellant
Versus
John Servage Philip and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant; Dr. W. S. Barlingay, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. R . Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 1. M/s. M. S. K. Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates. for Respondent No. 2.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - POWER TO SEND DELEGATES TO HEALTH CONGRESS - CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION ACT, 1948, S. 58(S) - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE AND LEGITIMATE CONNECTION BETWEEN SENDING DELEGATES AND PROMOTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH - BUDGET - WANT OF PROVISION FOR EXPENSES OF DELEGATION - EFFECT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WHEN CAN BE ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Corporation of Nagpur proposed to send two of its members as delegates to a Health Congress at Harrogate in U. K. and sanctioned certain expenses in connection with the delegation. A writ was issued by the High Court restraining the Corporation from carrying out the resolution.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the action of the Corporation was within its powers under S. 58(s) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, which authorized the Corporation to provide for matters likely to promote public health. The Court found that sending delegates to the Congress would have acquired useful knowledge connected with public health which the Corporation could utilize later to promote public health at Nagpur. The Court also held that the High Court erred in issuing the writ on the ground of want of capacity of the Corporation to make use of the knowledge gained at the Congress, as there were no materials on the record to justify this observation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur had the power under its incorporating statute, the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, to send delegates to the Health Congress at Harrogate? 2. Whether there was a reasonable and legitimate connection between the sending of the delegates to the Congress and the promotion of public health at Nagpur? 3. Whether the resolution sanctioning expenses for the sending of the delegation abroad was beyond the powers of the appellant Corporation due to the absence of a provision in the budget for such expenses?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 58(s) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, authorized the Corporation to provide for matters likely to promote public health. Sending delegates to the Congress would have acquired useful knowledge connected with public health which the Corporation could utilize later to promote public health at Nagpur. Therefore, the action of the Corporation was within its powers under the statute. 2. The subjects to be discussed at the Congress were not highly technical and the delegates proposed to be sent were capable of acquiring useful general knowledge regarding matters of public health. The Corporation had the power to decide how the delegation should be constituted. 3. The budget had a head dealing with allowances payable to the members of the Corporation, which could reasonably be contended to include the expenses of the members for the visit to the Congress. Even if it did not, Section 88 of the Act gave the Corporation power to transfer the amount of one budget grant from one major head to another. Therefore, the resolution sanctioning expenses for the delegation was not beyond the powers of the Corporation.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the writ issued by the High Court.
Judgment
SARKAR, J.: This appeal is against an order of the High Court of Bombay issuing a writ whereby the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur, the appellant before us, was restrained from carrying out a resolution proposing to send two of its members as delegates to a Health Congress at Harrogate in U. K. and sanctioning certain expenses in connection with the delegation.
2. There is no doubt that if what a Corporation proposes to do is what it had been authorised by its incorporating statute to do it is not the business of a court to interfere with the mode in which the Corporation decides to act: see mayor etc., of Westminster v. London and North Western Ry. Co., 1905 AC 42. If therefore, the appellant Corporation had power under its incorporating statute, the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, to send delegates to the Congress at Harrogate, it would appear prima facie that the writ was erroneously issued by the High Court. Now, S. 58 (s) of the Act provides,
"The Corporation may in its discretion provide from time to time either wholly or partly for all or any of the following matters, namely :-
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(s) any other matter likely to promote the public health, safety and convenience of the public."
The question is whether the action of the appellant Corporation is within this section.
3. It appears that the conveners of the Congress at Harrogate had sent an invitation to the appellant Corporation to send delegates to the Congress. The following facts appear from the invitation: delegates representing all aspects of public health would discuss at the Congress subjects of common interest: there would be a health exhibition where latest equipment and products of leading manufacturers and trade and research organisations would be put on show; and the delegates might visit water supply undertaking, sewage disposal works, housing schemes, hospitals health service centres, food factories and canteens and similar organisations. We think it beyond question that a delegate attending the Congress would certainly have acquired much useful knowledge of matters concerning public health and become acquainted with the modern equipment and appliances used in, and organisations suited for and the latest trend of thoughts regarding, matters concerning public health. It appears to us plain that by sending delegates to the Congress, the appellant Corporation would have acquired useful knowledge connected with public health which it could utilise later to promote public health at Nagpur. The sending of delegates, therefore, was something which the appellant Corporation was authorised by S 58 (s) of its incorporating statute to do.
4. As we understand the judgment of the High Court, it does not seem to have felt much doubt about this. The High Court appears, however, to have taken the view that there was no reasonable and legitimate connection between the sending of the defecates to the Congress and the promotion of public health at Nagpur. It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the High Court s point of view. In the first place, the High Court seems to have been sceptical of the benefit to be derived from the delegation because the subjects to be discussed at the Congress were, in its opinion, highly technical and he delegates proposed to be sent being non- technical men, namely lawyers, were not likely to be in a position to follow the discussion. We nave no reason to think that the subjects to be discussed at the Congress were highly technical. That it would not have been so, appears to us clear from the fact that a very large gathering was expected at the Congress, over 2,600 having attended at the previous one. There is further no reason to think that the delegates proposed to be sent by the appellant Corporation would not have been able to acquire at the Congress a great deal of useful general knowledge regarding matters of public health. Lastly, it is not for this Court to decide how the delegation s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
