Skip to content


Abdul Wahid Vs. the Municipal Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All267; 71Ind.Cas.1032
AppellantAbdul Wahid
RespondentThe Municipal Board
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), section 326 - act done in official capacity--refusal to pay amount of bill--suit to recover amount--limitation terminus a quo. - - when the time came to examine his bills, the engineer to the municipal board was of opinion that abdul wahid was claiming for work which in fact had never been ordered, and that, on other grounds as well, there were certain items open to objection, and that the claim of abdul wahid, which was for some rs. that refusal was clearly, in our opinion, an act done by the board in its official capacity;.....course of events, attend the magh mela of that year. the board entered into contracts with one abdul wahid and he carried out certain work. when the time came to examine his bills, the engineer to the municipal board was of opinion that abdul wahid was claiming for work which in fact had never been ordered, and that, on other grounds as well, there were certain items open to objection, and that the claim of abdul wahid, which was for some rs. 827, should be reduced by rs. 350. a notification to that effect was sent to abdul wahid on the 14th of august 1918, the board supporting the engineer with regard to the striking out of the rs. 350. in 1920 abdul wahid having commenced no action went away on military service. on the 12th of january 1922 he commenced an action in the small cause.....
Judgment:

1. In the early part of the year 1918 the Municipal Board of Allahabad wanted certain huts of a temporary nature built in order to afford temporary accommodation for the persons who would, in the ordinary course of events, attend the Magh mela of that year. The Board entered into contracts with one Abdul Wahid and he carried out certain work. When the time came to examine his bills, the Engineer to the Municipal Board was of opinion that Abdul Wahid was claiming for work which in fact had never been ordered, and that, on other grounds as well, there were certain items open to objection, and that the claim of Abdul Wahid, which was for some Rs. 827, should be reduced by Rs. 350. A notification to that effect was sent to Abdul Wahid on the 14th of August 1918, the Board supporting the Engineer with regard to the striking out of the Rs. 350. In 1920 Abdul Wahid having commenced no action went away on military service. On the 12th of January 1922 he commenced an action in the Small Cause Court for a sum of Rs. 390, Rs. 40 of this amount was for return of deposit, a matter with which we are not concerned. In the ordinary course, having regard to the fact that Abdul Wahid was on military service, the action, if it was governed by ordinary rules of limitation, would be within time. The Municipal Board, however, took the point that, under Section 326 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, the suit brought by Abdul Wahid ought to have been commenced within six months from the date of their refusal to pay. The Judge of the Small Cause Court came to the conclusion that that was a fatal objection to the claim of Abdul Wahid and dismissed it. The matter has come up before us in revision and we have been referred to the exact words of the section. The relevant words are: 'No suit shall be instituted against a Board in respect of an act done in its official capacity, unless such action be commenced within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action.' Now, the cause of action was the refusal by the Board to pay Rs. 350. The refusal by the Board was determination by certain gentlemen sitting as a Board in a matter which concerned the finances of the Board, which concerned the proper carrying out of the duties of the Board, and cannot be otherwise described than as an 'official act.' The Engineer officially reported to the Board his opinion that Rs. 350 ought to be struck off the bill; certain gentlemen duly elected to the Municipal Board approved that recommendation of the Engineer and decided it should be carried into effect and Rs. 350 withheld. That refusal was clearly, in our opinion, an act done by the Board in its official capacity; and, therefore, for the refusal to pay the sum of Rs. 350, Abdul Wahid ought to have commenced hip action within six months from the date of the refusal. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decision of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court is right and that this application for revision must be rejected with costs and fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //