( 1 ) THE first contention which has been raised by Mr. Vakil who appears on behalf of the Corporation is that the respective notices issued upon the plaintiffs by the Corporation were valid and that the Courts below were in error in holding that they were invalid. While holding that the impugned notices were invalid what has weighed with the Courts below is that sec. 260 of the said Act confers power upon the Municipal Com- missioner to issue such notices and that the impugned notices were not issued by the Municipal Commissioner but by so no other officer to whom he had delegated his powers. According to the Courts below the power exercisable under sec. 260 of the Act was quasi-judicial power and that therefore the Municipal Commissioner could not delegate it to anyone. It was he and he alone who could exercise that power.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 662 of 1968 decided on 14th to 27th October 1969 be Bhagwati C. J. (as he then was) and Vakil J. Sec. 260 of the Act came up for construction. It was held in that decision that sec. 260 conferred upon the Municipal Commissioner quasi-judicial power which he could not delegate to anyone else. Therefore if any notice was issued under section 260 by an officer to whom the Municipal Commissioner had delegated his quasi-judicial power it was void because the delegation of quasi judicial power by the Commissioner itself was void. Sec. 260 was construed by this Court after having taken into account see. 69 of the said Act. The material part of sec. 260 reads as follows : (1) If the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in sec. 254 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or by-laws the Commissioner unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under sec. 264 shall (a) by written notice require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice by a statement in writing subscirbed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commis- sioner to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down sec. 69 before it was amended by Gujarat Act 5 of 1970 provided as follows :subject to the provisions of sub-secs. (2) and (3) any of the powers duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner or the Transport Manager by or under any of the provisions of this Act may be exercised performed or discharged under the control of the Commissioner or the Transport Manager as the case may be and subject to his revision and to such conditions and limita- tions if any as may be prescribed by rules or as he shall think fit to prescribe in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or rules by any municipal officer whom the Commissioner or the Transport Manager generally or specially empowers by order in writing in this behalf; and to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered the word Commissioner and the words Transport Manager occurring in any provision in this Act shall be deemed to include such officer. IT is not necessary to reproduce the remaining sub-sections of sec. 69 for the purpose of the present cases. The view which this Court expressed in Special Civil Application No. 662 of 1958 was based upon the construction of sec. 260 and sec. 69 as reproduced above. After this Court expressed that view in Special Civil Application No. 662 of 1968 sub-sec. (1) of sec. 69 was amended and after the words powers duties or functions the following words were inserted : including powers duties or functions of a judicial or quasi judicial nature. The Amending Act further provided that the aforesaid amendment shall be and shall be deemed always to have been inserted. The second amendment which was made by Gujarat Act No. 5 of 1970 to s