BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus DHONDU NARAYAN CHOWDHARY

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 08-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
' 
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
v. 
DHONDUNARAYANCHOWDHARY 
February 8, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. llIDAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH 
AND s. M. SIICRI, JJ .] 
Bombay City Corporation A.ct, s. 6S-Commbsk>ner empowered to 
d•l•gat• hi.r judicial functions und<r Chapter YJ-A.-Pow•r1 
delegated 
subject to Commi.rsionet's 'contror and 'subject to his rl!Vlston'-Dele-
gation whether proper. 
One C a tenant o! a Chaw! belonging to the Municipal Corporation 
of Bombay died, and his widow on whom the tenancy devolved, took in 
a boarder. 
Proceedings by the Corporation under Chapter VI-A of the 
Municipal Corporation Act for their ejectment were initiated by an otllcer 
to whom the commissioner had delegated his powers under s. 68 of the 
Act. 
After due enquiry the officer passed an order evicting C's widow 
and her boarder. In an al'peal filed under s. IOSF of the Act before the 
Bombay City Ci\il Court it was held that the delegation of the Commia-
sioner's power was not proper inasmuch as the judicial functions of the Com-
missioner undet ss. 1 OSB to IOSE had been delegated to be exercised under 
the Commissioner's control and subject to his revision, and consequently 
the order of ejectment was without jurisdiction. The Corporation appeal-
ed, by special leave, to the Supreme Court. No question as to the validity 
of the law was raised. 
It was only contended that judicial power was 
delegated with administrative control over the delegates decision. 
HELD : (i) Section 68 was originally intended to cover very ~erent 
matters because Chapter VI-A could not then have been in contemplation. 
When Chapter VI-A was added and a reference to ss. IOSB to IOSE 
was included in s. 68, the wording of that section became applicable to 
the powers exercisable under ss. I OSB to I OSE, even though that wordina. 
taken literally, is somewhat inapt to cover delegation of judicial power. [932 
DJ 
(ii) To the delegation of judicial power as such there can be no 
objection when the law either expressly or by necessary implica~on per-
mits it. In the present case the amendment of s. 68 by inclusion of the 
delegation of the function of the Commissioner under "'· I OSB to 1 OSB 
does indicate the intention that the judicial and quasi-judicial power1 
contained in Chapter VI-A were expressly intended to be delegated. The 
words 
11the Commissioner's control" and "subject to his revision" 
in 
s. 68, as well as in order of delegation, are really appropriate to a dele-
gation of administrative functions. 
They must be reasonably conatrued. 
In respect of judicial or quasi-judicial functions these words cannot bear 
the meaning which they bear in the delegation of administrative functions. 
When the Commissioner stated that his functions were delegated subject 
to his control and revision it did not mean that he reserved to himself the 
right to intervene to impose his own decision upon his delegate. Tht 
-control envisaged was not control over the decision as such but over the 
administrative aspects of cases and their disposal and the delegstion was 
valid. 
[932 F-933 BJ 
The order of the Bombay City Civil Court could not therefore be 
sustained. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 865 of 
1964. 
930 
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS 
[1965] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
A 
February 14, 1964 of the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in 
Appeal No. 86 of 1963. 
M. C. Setalvad, J.B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
Naraln, for the appellant. 
B. K. Bhattacharjee and S. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Hidayatullah,_ J. In this appeal by special leave against the 
judgment and order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, 
Bombay dsited February 14, 1964, the only question is whether the 
C 
delegation- by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of his 
functions under ss. I OSB to 1 OSE to certain officers of the Cor-
poration was valid and proper. This question arises in the follow-
ing circumstances : 
One Govind Harl was a monthly tenant of room No. 23 of a chaw/ D 
at Chandanwadi. After his death in 1961 the tenancy devolved on 
his widow Anusuyabai, who took in a boarder. The chaw/ belong-
ed to the Municipal Corporation and proceedings were taken to 
eject Anusuyabai and the boarder under Chapter VI-A of the 
Municipal Corporation Act. These proceedings were initiated by 
one of the officers to whom the powers o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.