The power to take proceedings under S. 481(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 did not include the power to authorize others to institute proceedings.

Headnote:
BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949 - S. 69, 481 - DELEGATION OF POWERS - POWER TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS - MEANING OF - WHETHER INCLUDES POWER TO AUTHORISE OTHERS TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed against the accused for carrying on the work of blacksmith without obtaining a license. The complaint was filed by the Licence Inspector, who had been granted permission to do so by the Deputy Health Officer. The Deputy Health Officer had been delegated certain powers under S. 69 of the Act, including the power to take proceedings against any person charged with an offence under S. 392(1)(a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power to take proceedings under S. 481(1)(a) of the Act did not include the power to authorize others to institute proceedings. The court reasoned that the word "take" in S. 481(1)(a) meant "to initiate or commence proceedings" and did not mean "to cause proceedings to be taken".
Issues: Whether the power to take proceedings under S. 481(1)(a) of the Act included the power to authorize others to institute proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word "take" in S. 481(1)(a) meant "to initiate or commence proceedings" and did not mean "to cause proceedings to be taken". The court reasoned that if the Legislature had intended to give the delegate the power to authorize others to institute proceedings, it would have used the words "order proceedings to be taken" or similar language.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by the High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused.

Judgement

SIKRI, J.: This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat is directed against the judgment and order of the said High Court in Cri. Revn. Application No. 145 of 1984 whereby the High Court allowed the application and set aside the conviction and sentence of Manilal Maganlal, one of the respondents before us. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the licence inspector, Mangulal Chunilal, was competent to file the complaint under S. 376(1)(d)(i), read with S. 392(1)(a), of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

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 was stated:

"I have obtained permission for filing this complaint from the Medical Officer of Health by order No. dated 1st October, 1963."

The 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 noted :

"Permission is 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 above report."

The Deputy 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 include :

"Power to 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".

3. 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".

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends (1) that the decision of the Bombay High Court in 55 Bom LR 377 = (AIR 1953 Bom 365) was binding on the learned Judge in view of the full bench decision in State of Gujarat v. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi 1962-3 Guj LR 269; (2) the power to take proceedings includes power to authorise others to institute proceedings in the context of the Act; and (3) that there were 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.

5. The respondents are unfortunately not represented before us. This Court has already held in T. P. Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, Civil Appeal No. 500 of 1965 D/- 5-9-1967 that the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in 1962-3 Guj LR 269 was binding on Raju, J. Following that judgment we hold that Raju, J., was not entitled to dissent from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 55 Bom LR 377.

6. Before dealing with the main point raised before us it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act :

"Section 69 (1). Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), any of the powers, duties or functions confer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document