( 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