Chagla, C.J.

1. Four issues relating to jurisdiction have been raised on the summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiff, and they have now come before us for decision.

2. The suit in which these issues arise was filed for recovering a sum of Rs. 11,704-5-4, and the main question that we have to consider is whether in view of the notification issued by the Government on 20th January 1950, this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.

3. In order to understand and appreciate the contentions raised before us it is necessary to look at the Bombay City Civil Court Act (Bom. Act XL [40] of 1948). That Act was passed by the Bombay Legislature in order to establish an additional Civil Court for Greater Bombay, Section 3 of that Act deals with the constitution of the new Court and provides that:

"The Provincial Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish for the Greater Bombay a Court, to be called the Bombay City Civil Court. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such Court shall have jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding ten thousand rupees in value, and arising within the Greater Bombay, except suits or proceedings which are cognizable..."

Then follow the four sub-clauses which exempt from the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court suits mentioned in these four sub-clauses. Then there is a proviso enabling the Provincial Government, from time to time, after consultation with the High Court, by a like notification to extend the jurisdiction of the City Court to any suits or proceedings of the nature specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of that section. Then we come to Section 4 which provides that :

"Subject to the exceptions specified in Section 3, the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, invest the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature arising within the Greater Bombay and of such value not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees as may be specified in the Notification."

Pursuant to the powers which the Provincial Government thought it had under Section 4 of the Act, the Provincial Government issued a notification on 20th January 1950, and the notification was to this effect : The notification sets out the power conferred upon the Government under Section 4 of the Act and then proceeds to invest, with effect from and on the date of the notification, the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees in value, and arising within the Greater Bombay subject, however, to the exceptions specified in Section 3 of the said Act.

4. Sir Jamshedji contends in the first instance that Bombay Act XL [40] of 1948 is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. The same contention came up before this Court in another proceeding Mulchand Jagtiani v. Raman Shah, 51 Bom. L. R. 86 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 Bom. 197) and it was held by this Court in that case that the Act was intra vires the Bombay Legislature.

5. The further contention that has been raised is that Section 4 of the Act is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. Sir Jamashedjis contention is that by Section 4 the Legislature has delegated its legislative powers to another authority and has given the right to the Provincial Government to invest the City Court with jurisdiction from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand rupees, a power which the legislature alone can exercise, and in conferring such power under Section 4 it has acted outside its powers. Now there can be no doubt that a Legislature can appoint a subordinate agency to carry out certain kinds of work which it would be impossible for the Legislature itself to attend to. As the affairs of the State get more and more complicated and complex it would be quite impossible for the Legislature to attend to every detail which may