http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MANGULAL CHUNILAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANILAL MAGANLAL & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/11/1967

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. SHELAT, J.M. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  822            1968 SCR  (2) 401  CITATOR INFO :  R          1968 SC1339  (7)

ACT: Bombay,  Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949  ss.  69 and  481-- Filing of complaint, who can-"Take  proceedings," meaning of.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant-licence inspector, filed a complaint  against the  respondent.  The appellant had obtained  permission  to file  the complaint from the Deputy Health Officer, who  had been  delegated  the  powers under s. 69(1)  of  the  Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, by the Municipal Commissioner.   The respondent was convicted, but, the  High Court  in revision, set aside the conviction.  In appeal  to this  Court,  the  appellant contended  that  there  was  no limiting  words  in the order delegating the  power  to  the Deputy  Health  Officer  that he  should  file  a  complaint himself  ’and not authorise others; and that- power to  take proceedings includes power to authorise others to  institute proceedings  in  the  context of the  Act.   Dismissing  the appeal, HELD : Only the authorities mentioned in s. 481 read with s. 69  could launch proceedings, against persons  charged  with offenses under the Act or the rules, regulations or bye-laws made under it.  A person who files a complaint under the Act must  show that he has the authority to file that  complaint and that authority cannot be conferred upon by an  erroneous interpretation long acquiesced. [406 D-F] The words "take proceedings" cannot be interpreted. to  mean "order  proceedings to be taken" because the word "take"  is an  English  word and only a meaning which it bears  in  the English language can be ascribed to it. [406 B-C] Ballavdas Agarwal, v.j. C. Chakravartv, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 739, T.  P. Thakur v. Ratilal Motild Patel, [1968] 1 S.C.R.  455, followed. Sitite   v.   Mainilal  Jethalal,   (1953)55   B.L.R.   377, disapproved.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 9, 1964 of  the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision  Application No. 145 of 1964. B.   R. Agaarwala, for the appellant. R.   H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri,  J.  This appeal by certificate granted by  the  High Court of Gujarat is directed against the judgment and  order of the said High Court in Criminal Revision Application  No. 145 of 1964 402 whereby the High Court allowed the application and set aside the conviction and sentence of Manilal Maganlal, one of  the respondents  before  us.  The only point  involved  in  this appeal is whether the licence inspector, Mangulal  Chunilal, was  competent to file the complaint under s. 37 6  (1)  (d) (i),  read  with s. 392 (1) (a), of  the  Bombay  Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to  as the Act. The relevant facts are not now in dispute and are as follows On October 10 , 1963, Mangulal Chuniial, licence  inspector, filed  a  complaint against  Manilal  Maganlal,  hereinafter referred  to as the accused, alleging that th e accused  had carried   on  the  work  of  blacksmith   by   manufacturing machinery, spare parts and safe cupboards, without obtaining licence.  At the end of the complaint it was stated :                "I  have obtained permission for filing  this               complaint  from the Medical Officer of  Health               by order no. dated 1-10-63." The  licence  inspector  had applied to  the  Deputy  Health Officer,   Ahmedabad   Municipal  Corporation,   to   accord permission to file the complaint as offence under s. 392 (1) (a)  of  the  Act had been  committed.   The  Deputy  Health Officer noted:                "Permission   is   granted   under    Section               481(1)(a)   of  Chapter  30  of   the   Bombay               Provincial  Municipal Corporation Act of  1949               to file complaint for the offence committed in               breach  of the provisions of law as  shown  in               the above report." The Deputy Health Officer (including Deputy Health  Officer. Food  and Licence Branch) had been delegated certain  powers under  S.  69(1) of the Act by the  Municipal  Commissioner. The powers delegated to the Deputy Health Officer include .                "Power  to take proceedings against Sec.  481               (1) any person who charged with (a) (i) (iii)                Any offence                (i)  Under  section 392(i) and/or  392(2)  of               the B.P.M.C. Act 1949 for breach of provisions               mentioned in section below --                164, 184(1)(a), 233(1), 297, 376, 377(1) 381,               383, 384".                403 It  was contended before the High Court that  the  complaint had  been  filed  by  the  Licence  Inspector  whereas   the delegation  under s. 69 of the Act was to the Deputy  Health Officer  to  take proceedings as provided in s. 481  of  the Act.    It   was  contended  that   the   expression   ’take proceedings"  in s. 481 means instituting in  complaint  and does  not mean causing a complaint to be filed.   Raju,  J., who  heard  the  revision,  accepted  this  contention.   He declined to follow the judgment of the Bombay High Court  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

The  State v. Manilal Jethalal(1) in which it had been  held that  the words "take proceedings" meant "order  proceedings to be taken." The learned counsel for the appellant contends (1) that  the decision  of the Bombay High Court in The State  v.  Manilal Jethalal(1) was binding on the learned Judge in view of  the full  bench  decision  in State  of  Gujarat  v.  Gordhandas Keshavji  Gandhi(2);  (2)  that power  to  take  proceedings includes power to authorise others to institute  proceedings in  the  context  of  the Act and (3)  that  there  were  no limiting  words  in the order delegating the  power  to  the Deputy  Health  Officer  that he  should  file  a  complaint himself and not authorise others. The respondents are unfortunately not represented before us. This  Court  has  already held in T. P.  Thakur  v.  Ratilat Motilal Patel(1) that the judgment of the Full Bench of  the Gujarat  High  Court  in  State  of  Gujarat  v.  Gordhandas Keshavii Gandhi (2 ) was binding on Raju, J. Following  that judgment we hold that Raiu, J., was not entitled to  dissent from  the judgment of the Bombay High Court in The State  v. Manilal Jethalal(1-). Before  dealing with the main point raised before us  it  is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act :                "S. 69(1).  Subject to the provisions of sub-               sections  (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 limitations, 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               .lm0               (1) (1953) 55 B.L.R. 377.    (2) (1962) 3 Guj.               T-.R, 269.                (1)[1968] 1 S.C.R.455.                404                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.                S.   481.(1) The Commissioner may-                 (a) take,   or  withdraw  from   proceedings               against any person who is charged with-                (i)  any  offence  against this  Act  or  any               rule, regulation or by-law;                (ii) any  offence which affects or is  likely               to  affect  any property or  interest  of  the               Corporation or the due administration of  this               Act;                (iii)     committing any nuisance whatever;                (b)  compound any offence against this Act or               any rule, regulation or by-law which under the               law for the time being in force may legally be               compounded,                (c)  defend  any  election  petition  brought

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             under section 16;                (d)  defend,  admit or compromise any  appeal               against  a ratable value or tax brought  under               section 406;                (e)  take,   withdraw  from  or   compromise.               proceedings under sub-section (2) -of  section               402.  sub-sections (3) and (4) of section  439               and sections 391 and 41 6 for the recovery  of               expenses or compensation claimed to be due  to               the Corporation;                (f)  withdraw  or compromise any claim for  a               sum not exceeding five hundred rupees  against               an),  person in respect of a  penalty  payable               under a contract entered into with such person               by the Commissioner, or, with the approval  of               the Standing Committee, any such claim for any               sum exceeding five hundred rupees;                (g)  defend   any   suit   or   other   legal               proceedings brought against the Corporation or               against   the  Commissioner  or  a   municipal               officer or servant in respect of anything done               or omited to be done by them, respectively, in               their official capacity;                (h)  with   the  approval  of  the   Standing               Committee, admit or compromise any claim, suit               or   legal  proceeding  brought  against   the                             Corporation or against the Com                405                missioner or a municipal officer or- servant,               in  respect of anything done or omitted to  be               done as aforesaid;                (i)  with  the like approval,  institute  and               prosecute   any  suit  or  withdraw  from   or               compromise  any suit orany claim other than  a               claim  of the description specltied in  clause               (f), which has been instituted or made in  the               name of the Corporation or the Commissioner;." It  is not disputed that s. 69 enables the Commissioner-  to delegate  powers  duties or functions conferred  or  imposed upon  him  or  vested in him to a  municipal  officer.   The Commissioner  having  delegated  his powers  to  the  Deputy Health Officer, the question arises whether it is the Deputy Health  Officer  or the Licence Inspector  who  should  take proceedings against the accused within the meaning of s. 481 (1)  (a).  It is not disputed that under subcls.  (b),  (c), (d), (f) (g), (h) and (i) of s. 481 (1), the various actions contemplated in these sub-clauses would have to be taken  by the  delegate  himself.  In other words, he  would  have  to institute a suit within sub-cl. (i) and admit or- compromise any claim. suit or legal proceeding within sub-cl. (b),  but it  is said that the word "take" has been deliberately  used in  sub-cls. (a) and (e) to enable the delegate  to  entrust initiation   of  proceedings  to  another   person   because otherwise   it   would  be  impossible  to  carry   on   the administration  of the municipality.  It is said that  thou- sands of complaints have to be filed and it would be casting undue  burden on the Deputy Health Officer to sign  all  the complaints.   We  are not impressed by this  argument.It  is true  that  the  word "take" has  various  meanings  but  no dictionary  or authority has been placed before us  to  show that  the word can mean "cause to be taken". It seems to  us that the word "take" was used because if the word institute" had been used it may not have been appropriate    to   cover all proceedings that can be taken under s.   481 (1)(a). Bavdakar, J., had observed in The State v. Manilal jetha-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

lal(1) :                " One can see easily why the words "take" are               used.  It was desired to combine in one clause               the   two   powers,  the   power   to   launch               proceedings   and   the  power   to   withdraw               proceedings,  and if the words "withdraw  from               proceedings" were used, it was not easy to use               the words ’  order proceedings to be taken" in               combination    with   the   words    "withdraw               proceedings."               We  are  unable  to accept  this  as  correct.               Bavdekar, J.. further observed               (1)   (1953) 55 B.L,R. 377-379.                406                "If the Legislature had in such a case really               wanted  that the complaint should actually  be               either  of  the  Commissioner  or  an  officer               empowered by him, it would have been perfectly               easy  to  use the words which  find  place  in               several  Acts,  for example,  "except  upon  a               complaint in writing of the Commissioner or an               officer to whom he has delegated his powers." It  is true that if the language suggested by him  had  been used  no dispute would have arisen.  But we are not free  to interpret  the  words  "take  proceedings"  to  mean  "order proceedings  to  be  taken" because the word  "take"  is  an English  word and we can only ascribe to it a meaning  which it bears in the English language. The  learned counsel for the appellant says that  since  the decision  of the Bombay High Court in The State  v.  Manilal Jethalal(1)  no other decision has taken any other view  and we  should  not disturb the view which has  prevailed  since that  decision.   We are unable to accept  this  contention. This is not a case where a series of decisions have taken  a particular  view and that view has been widely accepted  and various rights have accrued to parties acting on that  view. A person who files a complaint under the Act must show  That he  has  the  authority  to file  that  complaint  and  that authority  cannot  be  conferred upon him  by  an  erroneous Interpretation  long  acquiesced  in.  This  Court  held  in Ballaivdas Agarwala v. J. C. Chakravarty(2) that a complaint under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, could only be  filed by the authorities mentioned therein and not by an  ordinary citizen.   Similarly,  here  it seems to us  that  only  the authorities mentioned in s. 481, read with s. 69, can launch proceedings against persons charged with offenses under  the Act  or  the rules, regulations or bye-laws made  under  it. This Court noticed the decision of the Bombay High Court  in Manilal  Jethalal’s case(1) in Ballavdas Agarwala v.  J.  C. Chakravarty(2) and observed :                "The   decision  proceeded,  however,  on   a               somewhat wide meaning given to the words ’take               proceedings’ that part of the decision, as  to               the correctness of which we say nothing,  does               not concern us here, because the words used in               s.  537  of  the Calcutta  Municipal  Act  are               different." We may mention that Hidayatullah, J., observed at p. 764  in Ballavdas Agarwala’s case (2 ) :                       "An  officer of the municipality  must               himself perform hi-, duties created by statute               or  bye-law.   He  cannot  delegate  them   to               others, unless expressly authorised in               (1) (1953) 55 B.L.R. 377-379.               (2) [1960] 2 S.C R. 739.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

              407                this behalf.  The Act does not so empower the               officers to delegate their functions in  their               turn, and thus an officer to whom the power is               delegated  by the Chairman must  perform  them               himself." We agree with the above observations of Hidayatullah, J.  On this  point there does not seem to have been any  difference of opinion between him and the majority; he differed only on the question whether on the facts in that case there was  in fact a delegation or not. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the appeal and maintain the order passed by the High Court. Y.P.                                    Appeal dismissed. 408