JUDGMENT - (1) This is an appeal against the order passed by Mr. Justice K.T. Desai by which by directed the issue of a writ to appellant No. 1, the Bombay Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the corporation requiring the corporation to forebear from discussing a resolution, in regard to Mr. Imre Nagy and is associates, of which a notice had been given by a councilor of the corporation. Dr. R. N. Kulkarni. The resolution was in the following terms:

That the Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay have learnt with deep regret about the execution of Mr. Imre Nagy, a former Prime Minister doctrine of Panchasila enunciated by our country and accepted by other countries of the world. The corporation hereby express their horror at the execution under peculiar conditions of those fighters for freedom of their motherland who, by displaying great courage and steadfastness even at the cost of their lives in the cause of their country freedom have upheld the dignity of man and rendered great serve to the highest value of life, viz. Freedom That Mayor be requested to forward the Resolution through the State Government to the Union Government with a request to communicate the proper channels for being communicated to the families of the late Mr. Imre Nagy and his associates with an expression of the corporations sympathy in their sad bereavement.

It was moved at a meeting of the corporation held on 10th July 1958. A point of order was then raised that the corporation had no power to discuss the resolution , as it was of a political nature and related to international affairs and as it had nothing to do with civic duties which it was said must necessarily relate to the life and welfare of the citizens of Bombay. The second appellant who was the Mayor of the corporation, at the time and who was the chairman of the meeting, then gave a considered and well reasoned ruling, by which he held that the resolution was in order. Thereafter the meeting of the corporation was adjourned. On 18th July 1958, the respondent who is also a councilor of the corporation, filed a petition in which he contended that the action of the corporation in discussing and passing the above resolution would be ultra vires the corporation. He therefore prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or prohibition or any of the appropriate writ, director or order, under Article 226 of the constitution, against the appellants, restraining the corporation from discussing or endorsing the said resolution. The petition was opposed by the appellants. The contended that the corporation had the right and the power to discuss and pass the said resolution under clause (k) of section 36 Clause (k) of section 63 of the Bombay Municipal corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellants contentions were not accepted by Mr. Justice Desai. He came to the conclusion that the resolution proposed was beyond the ambit and powers of the corporation. He therefore issued a writ restraining the corporation from discussing the said resolution or passing the same This order is being challenged in the present appeal.

(2) The Bombay Municipal corporation is constituted by the Bombay Municipal corporation Bombay Act. No. III of 1888 Being a creature of statute its powers are limited by the provisions of the act, by which it is created. It can therefore exercise only such powers as are specifically conferred upon it by or under the Act, or as are consequential to or incidental to the exercise of such powers. This position was not disputed during the course of arguments. It is therefore not necessary to cite any authority. I may, however, refer to the following passage from halsburys Laws of England, paragraph 129 in Volume IX, Third Edition:

"Statuatary Corporations: The powers of a corporation created by statute are limited and circumscribed by the statutes which regulate it an extend no further than is expressly stated therein or is necessarily and properly required for carry

Click Here to Read the rest of this document