CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION versus JOHN SERVAGE PHILLIP & ANR.

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 29-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
nr. Vim/" 
•• 
Dr/hi Adminirtratian 
Subba Rao, J. 
1.962 
Not•ember, 29. 
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
ss. 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The con-
viction and sentence passed on her are set 11side. 
Fine, if pJid, is directrd to be refunded tn the 
appellant. 
Appeal (11/ou·i•tl, 
CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION 
v. 
JOHN SERV AGE PHILLIP & ANR. 
(S. K. DAS, .J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, 
M. HIDAYATULLAII and RAOHUllAR DAYAJ,. JJ.) 
Corporation-Power of .'fnding 1lelegalio11--Jurisdictio>t 
of civil court-Power of corporation to providt for e:rpen•M of 
delegation-The 
city of 
Naupur Corporation 
Act, Jfl48, 
(C.P. and Berai· II of 1950), 88, 58 (s), 88. 
The appellant Corporation passed a resolution deciding 
to send two of its 1nembers to a health conference at Harrbgate 
in U.K.. On the application of the respondent, the High Court 
of Bombay issued a write restraining the appellant from carrying 
out the resolution. 
Held, thats. 58 (s) of the Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, 
which gave power to the appellant Corporation to provide for 
any matter likely to promote public health autholised the 
resolution and it was for the appellant Corporation to decide 
how a thing which it had the power to do was to be done. 
It was not a case where it could be said that the delegation 
would have been of no benefit to the appellant Corporation at 
all and that was enough to prevent an interference by the Courts 
in the method of the exercise of its undoubted power by the 
appellant Corporation. 
t' 
Mayor etc. oj IV estminater v. Lont!on & ,.lnrtli 1Ve.•tm1 
Rai'.lwa~t C0mpan11, p 905 A.C. 426] relier! upon. 
2.S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
601 
The resolution could not be challenged on the.ground 
that the budget did not prDvide for the expense• of the del<'-
gation. 
'I'll' hudget in fact ditl so and even ir' it <lid not, there 
"'"' power tmdtJ' s. ll8 of the Act to ,ltn tht h11d.o;et to make 
the necessary pt'ovision. 
Statures cannot be confined only to thoHghts prevalent1 
at the time when they are euacted. They al'c pul in geneml •ermJ 
to embrace innm·arions. E\'en if in 
19411 
delegation by 
Corporation were not in contemplation, s. 58 (s) may be 
interpreted as inducting in "matters likely to promote a public 
health", the sending of the delegations. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 508 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the 
judgment .and order dated April 23, 1959 of the 
Bombay High Court at Nagpur in Special Civil 
Application No. llO of 1959. 
8.'r. De8ai, J.B. Dadachanji, 0.0. Jlathur and 
Rm•inr/e;· N11rain, for the appellant. 
Tl'. 8. Barli11gay, R. llfahalingfrr and G<mpr1t 
Rai, for respondent No. I. 
• 
· 11'!. H.K. 8a.~tri and R. 
N. 8<,clithey, for 
respondent No. 2. 
Hl62. November 2!1. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SAUKAR, J.-This appeal is against an order 
of the High Court of Bombay issuing a writ whereby 
the !vlunicipal Corporation of Nagpur, the appellant 
before us, 
wa~ restrained from carrying out a resolu-
tion proposing to send two of its members as dele-
gates to a Health Congress at Harrogate in U.K. and 
sanctioning certain expenses in connection with the 
delegation. 
There is no doubt that if what a Corporation 
proposes to do is what it had been authorised hy its 
incorporating- st:ltutc to do, it is not the business of 
1961 
City of Nae,..,. 
Corporatiun 
v. 
lolm Smagr Pliilfip 
Snrkar, J. 
1962 
Ci{v '!f }lag~ur 
Cfitftoralion 
v. 
John Sen1agr Phillip 
Sarkar, J. 
G02 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!l63] SUPP. 
a court to interfere with the mode in which the 
Corporation decides to act : see :Mayor, etc. nJ 
Westminster v. Landon a11d Nnrtll Western R"Uway 
Oompan11 ('). If, therefore, the appellant Corporation 
had power under its incorporating statute, the City of 
Nagpur Corporation Act, l!J48, to send delegates to 
the Congress at Harrogate, 
it 
would appear 
prima facie that writ was erroneously issued by the 
High Court. Now, s. 58 (s) of the Act provides, 
"The Corporation may in its discretion 
provides from time to time either wholly or 
partly for all or any of the following matters, 
namely:-
........................................................ 
(s) any 
other 
matter likely to promote 
the public health, safety and convenience 
-~ 
of the public." 
>-
The question is whether the action of the appellant 
Corporation is within this section. 
It appears that the convenors of the Congress at 
Harrogate had sent an inv

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