(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1975.

(2) A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 170(&) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which is almost in similar terms as Section 217 of the Maharashtra Act. Mr P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, does not press the attack on the ground of vires.

(3) MR Parekh has, however, contended that Section 217 of the Maharashtra Act be given the same interpretation as was given by this Court to Section 170(6) of the Delhi Act. Mr Nariman, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has invited our attention to the impugned judgment of the High Court whereunder the expression "entertained" in Section 217(2) of the Maharashtra Act has been interpreted in the following words:

"OUR section, however, uses three different expressions, namely, filed or brought, entertained an