Skip to content


State of Gujarat Vs. Chhotalal Pitambardas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1965)6GLR176
AppellantState of Gujarat
RespondentChhotalal Pitambardas
Excerpt:
- - moreover the words to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered would clearly show that the municipal officer is not empowered to delegate but he is delegated the power only to file a complaint......481 of the act the commissioner may take proceedings under the act. under section 69 of the act municipal officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers etc. of the commissioner. in this case the commissioner has sanctioned the filing of a complaint vide ex. 26 but the complaint has been filed by the sanitary inspector. in view of sections 481 and 69 of the act it is open to the commissioner to delegate the function of filing a complaint to an officer of the municipality. he has not done so. it is contended that the order sanctioning the complaint is itself to be construed as an order of delegation. ordinarily speaking such a sanction cannot be treated as an order of delegation. but even assuming that it can be treated as delegation the order is passed upon a report made.....
Judgment:

V.B. Raju, J.

1. This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted under Chapter 19 Rule 1(b) read with Schedule Chapter 14 Rule 31 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. Under Section 481 of the Act the Commissioner may take proceedings under the Act. Under Section 69 of the Act Municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers etc. of the Commissioner. In this case the Commissioner has sanctioned the filing of a complaint vide Ex. 26 but the complaint has been filed by the Sanitary Inspector. In view of Sections 481 and 69 of the Act it is open to the Commissioner to delegate the function of filing a complaint to an officer of the Municipality. He has not done so. It is contended that the order sanctioning the complaint is itself to be construed as an order of delegation. Ordinarily speaking such a sanction cannot be treated as an order of delegation. But even assuming that it can be treated as delegation the order is passed upon a report made to the Commissioner by the Municipal Officer of Health. But in fact the complaint has been filed by the sanitary Inspector.

2. It is next contended that under Section 69 of the Act when a municipal officer is delegated powers by the commissioner he himself becomes the Commissioner because it is provided in Section 69 of the Act that to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered the word Commissioner occurring in any provision in the Act shall be deemed to include such officer. It is contended that the words any provision include Section 69 of the Act. A person who is delegated powers by another person cannot re-delegate the power. If that is done there will be no end to the process of delegation. Moreover the words to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered would clearly show that the municipal officer is not empowered to delegate but he is delegated the power only to file a complaint. For both these reasons I reject the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader as the complaint has not been filed by a person as required by Sections 481 and 69 of the Act.

The acquittal appeal is therefore dismissed.


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