The Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation has the power to delegate the power to determine objections to valuation under S. 148 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to any officer of the Corporation under the provisions of S. 69 (4) of the Act.

( 1 ) THE order in this case will govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 270, 742, 743 and 744, all of 1984.

( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to these petitions, under Art. 226 of the Constitution briefly, are as follows : respondent No. 1 is a Municipal Corporation established under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner of the Corporation. Dissatisfied with the valuation of the property made for the purpose of levy of property tax, the petitioners submitted objections under S. 147 of the Act. Those objections were heard and rejected by the Assessment Officer of the respondent Corporation in pursuance of powers conferred upon him by respondent No. 2 by the order dt. 13-1-1982 passed by him in that behalf. The petitioner 8 contend that respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, had no power to delegate the powers conferred upon him by S. 148 of the Act to any other officer of the Corporation and consequently the orders passed by the Assessment Officer overruling the objections submitted by the petitioners being without jurisdiction, are null and void.

( 3 ) IN the return, it is contended that the Commissioner is empowered under the provision of S. 69 (4) of the Act to delegate any of the powers, duties or functions conferred upon him by the Act to any officer of the Municipal Corporation and that in pursuance of that power, the Commissioner has delegated the power conferred upon by S. 148 of the Act. It is, therefore, contended that the orders passed by the Assessment Officer overruling the objections of the petitioners, cannot be held to be without jurisdiction or null and void.

( 4 ) THE short question for consideration in this case is whether the power to determine objections to valuation made under the Act, conferred by S. 148 of the Act, could be delegated by the Commissioner to any officer of the Corporation under the provisions of S. 69 (4) of the Act.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision of the Act. Sub-Sec. (ii) of S. 5 of the Act defines the expression 'commissioner' as follows:" 'commissioner' means the Municipal Commissioner for the city appointed under S. 54 and includes an acting Commissioner appointed under Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 57 and any Minicipal Officer empowered under this Act to exercise, perform or discharge any of the powers, duties or functions of the Commissioner to the extent to which such officer is so empowered". Section 69 (4) of the Act empowering the Commissioner to delegate his functions to any officer of the Corporation, reads as follows :"municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise the powers of Commissioner. (4) Any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner by this Act may be exercised, performed or discharged under the Commissioner's control, and subject to his superintendence and to such conditions and limitations, if any, as he may thank fit to prescribe, by any Municipal Officer, whom the Commissioner may generally or specially empower in writing in this behalf. "now, power to determine objections to valuation is conferred on the Commissioner by S. 148 of the Act. That this power, under S. 148 of the Act to decide objections is a quasi-judicial power" was not disputed before us on behalf of the respondents. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the Commissioner had no power to delegate the quasi-judicial power conferred upon him by S. 148 of the Act. ( 6 ) AS held by the Supreme Court in Bombay Municipal Corpn. v. Dhondu Narayan Chowdhary, AIR 1965 SC 1486, it is well settled that judicial power cannot ordinarily be delegated unless the law expressly or by clear implication, permits it. S. 69 (4) of the Act, in our opinion, is a provision, which expressly permits the Commissioner to delegate any power