# City of Nae, ,. Corporatiun v. lolm Smagr Pliilfip

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 600
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1960
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullaii, RAOHUllAR DAYAJ
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/city-of-nae-corporatiun-v-lolm-smagr-pliilfip-2791
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

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.

## Text

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 conviction 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 resolution proposing to send two of its members as delegates 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 invitation to the appellant
Corporation
to send delegates to the Congress.
The following facts appear from the invitation: dcle·
gates representing all aspects of public
health
would discuss
at
the
Congress
subjects of
common
interest ; there
would
be a
health
exhibition where latest equipment and products of
leading manufacturers and trade and research organisations would be put on show; and the delegates
might visit water supply unde.rtaking, sewage disposal
works_,
housing schemes, hospitals, health service
contres, food factories and canteens and similar
organisations. We think it beyond question that
a delegate attending the congress would certainly
(I) [1905) A.C. 426.
2 s~c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
603
have acquired much useful knowledge of matters
c0111:erni11g public health and become arquaintt>d
with the modern equipment and appliances used in.
and organisations suited for and the latest trend of
thoughts regarding, matters concerning public health.
It appears to us plain that by sending delegates to the
Congress, the appellant Corporation would have
acquired useful knowledge connected with public
health which it could utilise later to promote public
health at Nagpur. The sending of delegates,
th« refore,
was
something
which the appellant
Corporation was authorised by section 58 ( s) of its
incorporating statute to do.
As we understand the judgment of the High
Court, it does not seem to have felt much doubl:
about this. The High Court appears, however, lo
have taken the view that there was no reasonable
and legitimate connection between the sending of the
delegates to the Congress and the promotion of
public health at Nagpur. It is somewhat difficult to
appreciate the High Court's point of view.
In the
first place, the High Court seems lo have been
sceptical of the benefit to be derived from
the
delegation because the subjects to he discussed at the
Congress were, in its opinion, highly tcchnic:il and
the delegate .. < proposed to be sent being non. technical
men, namely, lawyers, were not likely to be in a
position to follow the discussion.
\Ve
have no
reason to think that the subjects to be discussed at
the Congress were highly technical. That it would
not have been so, appearn to us clear from the fact
that a very large gathering was expected at the
Congress_. O\'Cr 2,GOO having attended at the predous
one.
There is further no reason to think that the
delegates proposed to be sent
by the appellant
Corporation would not have been able to acquire at
the Congress a great deal of useful general knowledge regarding. matters.of public health. Lastly, it
js not for this Court to decide how the delegatioμ
1962
Ci(v of .Vagpur
Corporatit.n
v.
Jolin Servage P/iillip
Sarkar, J.
1962
City of Nagpur
Corporation
v.
John Servage Phillip
Sarkar, J,
GO<l SUPREME COURT REPORTS (l9G3]SUPP.
should have been constituted so that the appellant
Corporation might have had the largest benefit from
it. It was for the Corporation to decide how the
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 proposed to be sent would have been of
benefit to the appellant Corporation at all, and that
is enough to prevent an interference by the courts in
the method of the exercise of its undoubted power
by the appellant Corporation. We arc unable to
agree with the view of the High Court that there. is
no reasonable or legitimate connection between the
sending of the delegation to the Congress and the
provisions of s. 58 (s) which we have earlier set out.
The High Court also said that the capacity of
the appellant Corporation to make use of the knowledge gained at the Congress was extremely limited.
There arc no materials on the record on which this
observation can be justified. The appellant Corporation can no doubt increase its capacity. In any
e\"ent, it would, after the delegation had returned ..
ha vc been in a better position to discharge its
functions concerning public health within its present
capacity. It would be absurd to say that the
appellant Corporation did not have the capacity to
improve its public health services. There was no
warrant to issue the writ on the ground of want of
capacity.
The Hi!4h Court also relied on certain sections
dealing with the budget.
It was said that there was
no provision in the budget for expenses of sending a
delegation abroad. Under s. 84 of the incorporating
statute, no payment can be made out of the municipal funds unless the expenditure is covered by the
budget. The High Court, therefore, observed that
the resolution sanctioning expenses for the sending of
the delegation ahroad was heyond the powers of the
appr.llant Corporation. In the first place, we are not
..,..
I
\
-
I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
605
sure that the budget did not provide for such expenses.
There was a head in it which dealt with
allowances payable to the members of the Corporation. It may reasonably
be contended
that
the expenses of the members for the visit to the
Congress are such allowances. But assume, they arc
not. Section 88 of the Act gives the Corporation
power to transfer the amount of one budget grant
from one major head to another provided however a
certain balance is maintained in the budget. There
i~ nothing to show that the appellant Corporation
could not have acted in this case under s. 88 and
altered the provisions of the bl\dget making express
provision for the expenses of the delegation. Jt was
not even suggested that the appellant Corporation
could not do so.
We think it right also to point out that in the
petition for the _writ it had not been said that the
resolution was bad because the expenses sanctioned by
it were outside the budget. That being so, this point
should not have been taken into consideration by the
High Court. It is true that the Corporation at the
request of the High Court placed before the High
Court. some of the papers in connection with the
bud~ct. That the Corporation out of r.espect to the
High Court should have done and, therefore, actually
did.
From this it cannot be contended that the
appellant Corporation never objected to the resolution
bemg challenged on the ground of .1 want of express
provision in the budget for the expenses of the delegation or would not have prejudiced in ·the hearing
of the petition if the rL'SOlution was attacked. on the
ground of want of a provision in the budget. This
challenge involved a question of fact and without
proper pleadings,
the appellant Corporation was
surely at a disadvantage in meeting it. Furthermore,
we are not· sure that s. 84 would have made the
resolution invalid. That section only prohibits an
expenditure for which the budget does not provide.
1962
Ci()' of Nagpur
CorporatWn
v.
John Servagt Philli;
Sarkar, J.
1962
City of .A"agpur
Corporation
v.
Jolut Seruage Philli/1
arkar, J.
aoG SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l963] SUl'P.
So it may be that all that s. 84 affects is the actual
expenditure.
It may not affect the resolution itself.
We think it- right to point out that the High
Court held that the appellant Corporation ha<l actccl
. honestly.
It observed that the circumstances did not
warrant the inference that the action of the Corpora·
tion was mala fide.
That being so, and the action
proposed being clearly within the statutory powers of
the apμdlant Corporatio11, we think that the High
Court was i11 error in issuing the writ.
We may now·notice one or two points of minor
importance argued at the bar on behalf of the respondents.
It was said that the question raised in this
appeal had become academic since the Congress was
long over. It may be stated that the Congress was
held from April :!7, to l\fay l, l!J59 and the writ was
issued by the High Court on April 23, 195!!.
It is
suggested that it is not, therefore, a fit case for decision in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
W c arc not at all impressed by this contention. It
seems to us that it is a matler of the utmost impor.
lance fur the appellant Corporation lo know its
rights uudcr its iucorpurali11g statute:.
It will have
to guide itself according to. our decision in future
when a similar point arises· again. If we do not
decide the point raised now, then on every subsequent
occasion the Corporation would be bound by the
judgment of the High Court under appeal and by
the tilne the matter is brought up here the same
argument that the qurstion has uecomc arack111ic can
always !Jc raised to defeat the μoint.
We thil1k that
the point raised by the appellant Corporation as lo its
powers under the statute and how far courts rnn review
the exercise of its power by the appellant Corporation
is of great importance and must he decided in this
appeal.
It is also said that in 1948 when the City of
-
I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
607
Nagpur Corporation Act was passed, these dele·
gations were not in contemplation.
Therefore,
s. 58 (s) cannot be interpreted as including promotion
or public health by sending of delegations. This is,
in our view, a completely idle contention. We have
no reason to think that the delegations were not sent
in 19·18.
In any case, statutes cannot be confined
only lo thoughts prev>ilent at the time when they
were enacted.
They arc put in general words tu
emurnce innovations as they come along.
Therefore,
even iF in 1948, delegations by Corporations were not
in contemplation, there is nothing to prevent us inter·
preting s. 58 (s) as including within matters likely to
promote public health, actions involving the sending
of delegations where promotion of public health
becomes likely as a result thereof.
We allow the appeal. In view of the order of
October 19, 1959, the appellant will pay the costs of
the respondent Phillip.
Appeal allowed.
1962
Ciry of Nagput
Corporation
y,
John Ser11a1< Phillip
Sarkar, J.