( 1 ) INTERPRETATION of Section 3 (3) (b) (i) of Delhi Municipal act, 1957 ( hereinafter referred to as the said. Act ) falls for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 20. 11. 2001 passed by learned Single judge of this Court in C. W. P. No. 57 of 2001 whereby and whereunder a notification dated 15. 12. 2000 issued by the administrator, Delhi in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3 (3) (b) (i) of the said Act was set aside.

( 2 ) ELECTIONS for Councillors in Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( in short, the Corporation ) were held in February, 1997. The administrator in exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 3 (3) (b) (i) of the said Act vide notification dated 29. 09. 1997, nominated ten persons to be represented in the Corporation including the petitioners. The said notification had neither been withdrawn nor cancelled or amended.

( 3 ) BY reason of the impugned notification dated 15. 12. 2000, the Administrator nominated ten more persons to be represented in the Corporation. Questioning the said notification, a writ petition was filed inter alia on the ground as nomination would be co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation, the impugned notification must be held to be bad in law.

( 4 ) THE contention of the appellants herein as also the official respondents, on the other hand, per contra was that as the power of appointment embraces with the power to dismiss, by reason of the subsequent notification the first notification must be held to be impliedly repealed.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge in his judgment impugned in this appeal held that the scheme of the said Act does not suggest that the Administrator has the power to replace the Members who had been nominated by issuing another notification superseding the earlier notification. Pursuant whereto, he arrived at a finding that the tenure of the Members nominated under Section 3 of the said Act is co-terminus with the tenure of the Corporation.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge laid emphasis on the fact that such nomination on the part of the Administrator is being not at his pleasure, the provisions of the General Clauses Act ( in short, gc act ) will have no application.

( 7 ) BEFORE adverting to the questions involved, the relevant provisions of the said Act may be noticed :-

"2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires (6) commissioner means the Commissioner of the Corporation; (7) corporation means the Municipal corporation of Delhi established under this Act;

( 8 ) THE Municipal Corporation of Delhi was originally constituted under the said Act. Certain new provisions were added by Amendment Act 67 of 1993 by reason whereof sub-sections (3), (6), (7) and (8) were added to Section 3 and a new Section 4 was also substituted by the said amendment.

( 9 ) SECTION 3 of the said Act provides for establishment of the Corporation. The Corporation is to be a body corporate, known as Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which shall be composed of the following Councillors :-

" (3) (A) The Corporation shall be composed of the councilors; (b) The following persons shall be represented in the Corporation, namely :- (i) ten persons, who are not less than 25 years of age and who have special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, to be nominated by the Administrator : provided that the persons nominated under this sub-clause shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the corporation; (ii) members of the House of the people representing constituencies, which comprise wholly or partly the area of the Corporation and the members of the Council of States registered as electors within the area of the Corporation; (iii) as nearly as possible one-fifth of the members of the Legislative assembly of the National Capital territory of Delhi representing constituencies, which comprise wholly or partly the area of the corporation to be nominated by t