Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24129
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANU SIVARAMAN, MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K, JJ
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, OFFICE AT BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560002 – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SMITA VIJAY W/O VIJAY KUMAR – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2023|WRIT APPEAL NO 1176 OF 2023|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2023|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2023|WRIT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VIKRAM S. HUILGOL, SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, SRI. PRADEEP PATIL
For the Respondents: SRI. JNANESH KUMAR K., SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, SRI. ADITYA CHATTERJEE, SMT. NIKITHA SURABHI, SMT. NIDHI PATIL, SRI. CHANDRAMOULI B.G., SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., SRI. RAJANNA C., SMT. DR. VANDANA P.L., SRI. G.K. SHIVAPRAKASH, SRI. S.F. GOUTAM CHAND, SRI. AKASH V.T., SMT. YESHASHWINI
Delegation of authority under Section 74 of the BBMP Act is permissible even in the absence of framed rules, confirming that statutory powers can still be exercised.
Headnote:(A) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 - Section 74 - Delegation of powers by the Zonal Commissioner - Writ appeals filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge regarding delegation of authority and exercise of power under the said Act. (Para 2)
(B) The court reviewed the legality of delegation of authority under the BBMP Act, stating that delegation is permissible subject to rules being framed, and the powers cannot be deemed void in absence of such rules. (Paras 4, 6)
(C) The appeals were decided in light of various judgments interpreting the delegation of powers under statutes, emphasizing that absence of rules does not hinder the exercise of statutory powers. (Paras 5-7)
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions were filed challenging the orders regarding the delegation of powers by the Zonal Commissioner under Section 74 of the BBMP Act, where the learned Single Judge held that delegation was not permitted without framing rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that it must be accepted that the powers conferred by the statute can be exercised even in absence of articulated rules, allowing the appeals and setting aside the single judge's orders.
Issues: Whether Section 74 of the BBMP Act permits delegation of powers by the Zonal Commissioner in absence of framed rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the power to delegate exists regardless of rule formulation, relying on established legal precedents regarding statutory interpretation and delegation.
Result: Appeals allowed and impugned orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identifying parties involved in writ appeals (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding the bbmp act's delegation authority (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. precedents affecting statutory interpretation and delegation (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's acceptance of appellant's contentions (Para 7) |
| 5. final judgment and directive for further legal compliance (Para 8) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Writ Appeals No.1301/2023, 1176/2023, 1293/2023, 1560/2023, 112/2024, 225/2024, 229/2024, 264/2024, 271/2024 and 354/2024 are filed against the order dated 21.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 21.08.2023, 11.10.2023, 26.07.2023, 10.11.2023, 11.10.2023, 11.10.2023, 11.10.2023 and 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.10024/2023, 9934/2023, 18147/2023, 21273/2023, 22305/2022, 22674/2023, 22820/2023, 22832/2023, 21585/2023 and 9676/2023 respectively.
2. We have heard Shri. Vikram. S. Huilgol, learned senior counsel for K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel and Sr. Pradeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Shri. Jnanesh Kumar. K, learned counsel, Shri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel, Smt. Dr. Vandana P.L, learned counsel, Shri. G.K. Shivaprakash, learned counsel, Shri. S.F. Goutam Chand, learned counsel, Shri. Akash. V.T, learned counsel, Smt. Yeshshwini, learned counsel, Shri. Chandramouli B.G, learned counsel, Shri. Jai Prakash Reddy M., learned counsel, Shri. Rajanna C, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Shri. Aditya Chatterjee, learned counsel, Smt. Nikitha Surabhi learned counsel and Smt. Nidhi Patil, learned counsel for intervenor in IA No.1/2025 in WA No.1176/2023.
3. It is submitted that challenging the provisional order issued under Section 248(1) and (2) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act , 2020 ('BBMP Act' for short) and the confirmation order, the writ petitioners had approached this Court filing the captioned writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, held that Section 74(2) of the BBMP Act does not permit the delegation of the Authority of the Zonal Commission and that his legal question has been answered in W.P.No.9934/2023 holding that until Rules are framed by the State, the Zonal Commissioner cannot delegate his powers let alone by way of an Office Circular.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the specific language of Section 74 of the BBMP Act, permits the delegation of the powers of the Zonal Commissioner subject to the Rules to be framed. Section 74 of the BBMP Act reads as follows:-
"74. Powers and Functions of the Zonal Commissioner.- The Zonal Commissioner shall perform the following functions, namely.-
(a) He shall be the nodal authority for carrying out the civic administration on those matters specified under this Act for the zone under his jurisdiction;
(b) He shall supervise, direct and coordinate the ward committees and the area sabhas on such matters as specified under this Act;
(c) He shall undertake functions as directed by the Chief Commissioner or Mayor from time to time; and
(d) Subject to the rules made by the State Government, the Zonal Commissioner may delegate to any officer of the Corporation subordinate to him any of his ordinary powers, duties and functions as provided under the Act.
It is an admitted case that no Rules have been framed. It is therefore, contended that subject to the Rules to be framed would mean that if no Rules are framed then the Power is with the Zonal Commissioner to delegate.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa State (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills and Another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 421 . A similar question came to be examined in this case, the relevant portion reads as follows:-
"In one of the cases decided by this Court, to be referred later in this judgment “as may be prescribed” has been held to mean “if any”. It is thus clear that such expression leaves the scope for some play for the wo
