DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. versus THE DHRANGADHRA MUNICIPALITY

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 19-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'959 
Associated Hotels 
of ltidia Ltd. 
v. 
R. N. Kapoor 
Subba Rao]. 
l959 
May z9. 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
out as part of a hotel or for hotel purposes, I must 
hold that they are not rooms in a hotel within the 
meaning of s. 2 of the Act. 
In this view, the appellants are not exempted from 
the operation of the Act. 
The judgment of the High 
Court is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed. 
ORDER 
In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the 
appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 
DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. 
v. 
THE DHRANGADHRA MUNICIPALITY 
(and connected petition) 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. K.APUR, 
P. B. G.AJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. W ANCHOo, JJ.) 
Municipality-Regulation of discharge of ejjl.uent-Issue of 
notice-Objection to such notice and requisition specified therein-
Scope of enquiry by Special Officer-Existence of nuisance, if can be 
gone into-Bombay District Municipal Act, I9DI, as adapted and 
applied to the State of Saurashtra and as amended by Act XI of I955· 
s. Ij3A(3). 
The respondent Municipality issued a notice under sub-s. (1) 
of s. l53A of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted 
and applied to the State of Saurashtra and as amended by Act 
XI of 1955, calling upon the appellant to show cause why it 
should not be directed to discharge the effluent of it's chemical 
works in the manner specified in the notice. On the :ippellant 
objecting to the notice and the requisition contained therein, a 
Special Officer was appointed by the Government under sub-s. (3) 
of that section to hold an enquiry in the matter. The Special 
Officer treated some of the issues raised, as preliminary issues of 
law and held .that the question whether the discharge of the 
effluent polluted the water and adversely affected the fertility of 
the soil was a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the 
Municipality and binding on him and was as such beyond the 
scope of his enquiry. The question for determinatiOn in this 
appeal was whether the Special Officer was right in the view he 
took of s. l53A(3) of the Act and in restricting ·the scope of the 
enquiry in the way he did. 
.. 
I
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
389 
' 
Held, that Special Officer took a wrong view of his jurisdic-
r959 
tion under s. 153A(3) of the Act and was in error in restricting 
the scope of the enquiry. 
Dhrangadhra 
There could be no doubt on a proper appreciation of the 
Chemical 
scheme laid down by the provision of s. 153A.of the Act, correctly 
Works Ltd. 
construed, that while the subjective satisfaction of the Municipa-
v. 
Iity as to the existence of the nuisance could not be questioned at The Dhrangadhra 
the initial stage when it sought to put the machinery provided by 
Municipality 
sub-s. (1) in motion or under sub-s. (2) where such existence was 
admitted, the situation contemplated by sub-s. (3) where the 
notice and the requisition were wholly disputed, and no mere 
modification of the requisition sought, was entirely different. 
The language of sub-s. (3) and particularly the words " to 
hold an enquiry into the matter" used by it clearly indicated 
that where there was such a contest, it was the duty of the 
Special Officer to enquire into the existence of the alleged 
nuisance and come to a finding of his own. The status of the 
Special Official and powers conferred on him by the relevant 
provisions of the Act, clearly indicated that sub-s. (3) was 
intended by the Legislature to be a protection against any 
arbitrary exercise of its power by the Municipality. 
It was of the utmost importance that such proceedings should 
in the interest of the community, be disposed of with all possible 
expedition. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Civil 
Appeal 
No. 173of1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated July 16, 1958, of the Special Officer appointed 
under section 153(3) of the Bombay District Municipal 
Act, 1901 (Bombay Act No. 111 of 1901), as applied to 
Saurashtra, Zalawad Di'vision, Surendarnagar. 
AND 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 174 of 1958. 
Petition under Article · 32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
Purshottam Tricumdas, P. N. Bhagwati, Tanibhai 
D. Desai and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant and 
petitioner. 
N. G. Chatterjee, S. K. Kapur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, 
for the respondent in appeal and respondent No. 2 in 
the petition. 
B. Sen and R. H. Dhebnr, for respondent No. 3 in 
petition. 
195

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