9911796707
TMI Blog1921 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and appeal as provided by Section 36(2) and the rules of the Dakor Municipality framed under Section 46 of that Act. So far as the General Board of the Municipality can exercise the power vested in them, consistently with the provisions of Section 96 , undoubtedly that body may do so. It may be that owing to the lapse of time or anything that may have happened in consequence, of the leave granted by the Committee or any other reason there may be difficulty in the way of exercising those powers effectively. But the Municipality have the legal right to exercise the powers of revision and appeal within the limits allowed by the statute and the rules thereunder. 4. Having regard to the terms of Rule 58, which prescribes the period of limitation for appeal by the party affected to whom the order complained of has been delivered orally or in writing, I am not clear that in the present case an appeal by a person to whom no such order was communicated is provided or contemplated. But rule 55 provides for appeals against the decisions or orders of delegates generally and where a party is injuriously affected by an order even though it may not be communicated to him orally or in writin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the General Board cancelled the leave on the 7th May. The plaintiff had not commenced to build before this date or even before the 5th April. It is not necessary to consider whether the provisional order of the 5th April would be within the scope of Sub-section (3) of Section 96. The orders contemplated by that sub-section are those made before any order under Sub-section (2) is made. On the other hand it was made within a month of the application and in exercise of the revisional powers which the Municipality had under the rules. It is not necessary to decide this point as the plaintiff had not commenced to build before or after that date. The final order was made within two months of the date of the application. No doubt it is an order which cancels the permission granted but it is not suggested on the facts of this case, and having regard to the nature of the proposed building and the objections to it, it can hardly be suggested that the order is not within the powers of the Municipality under Section 96, Sub-section (2). I do not say that it is open to the Municipality under Sub-section (2) to prevent all building by the owners on their respective lands, nor do I desire to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bay District Municipal Act III of 1901 could be delegated by the Municipality to its Public Works Committee. That is a Committee appointed under Section 29 of the Act, and it follows that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act cover the order passed by the Public Works Committee, on the 22nd March 1917, giving the appellant the permission he had applied for, unless there is such an inconsistency between this general enactment and the particular enactment regarding new buildings in Section 96 as would make it incumbent upon the Court to apply the ordinary rule of construction in such a case. This is wherever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute, and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply. 10. This is the rule laid down by Romilly M.R. in Pretty v. Solly (1859) 26 Beav. 606, 610, the leading case on the subject. 11. It is contended by Mr. Thakor for the appellant that there is such an inconsistency. His contention is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by the Public Works Committee within the month, and also an order by the Municipality suspending the carrying on of the work under Sub-section (3), Clause (a), and the case does not, therefore, fall under Sub-section (4) of Section 96. Also in a case where the Committee passes an order within the one month, refusing to give permission, there would clearly be nothing inconsistent in the right of appeal or revision referred to in Section 36, Sub-section (2); on the other hand, the present contention would deprive an applicant of this right. Nor is there any other provision in Section 96 which has been shown to be inconsistent with this right of appeal or revision. In fact I think the Legislature has clearly indicated in another part of the Act its intention to allow such interference with the power exercised by a delegate under Section 96. Section 136G authorises a Municipal Commissioner to pass orders under Section 96 and this is not one of the powers which can only be exercised with the previous approval of the Municipality under proviso (A) to that section. Then under Section 186M the Municipal Commissioner may delegate his powers under Section 96 to a Municipal officer or serva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96 being between the appellant and the Municipality. But I do not think there is anything in Rules 55 to 58 which justifies this narrow construction of the word appeal. Rule 58, Sub-rule (1), speaks of the party affected by the order appealed against, and unless the word party is to be read in the narrow sense of a party to a suit or legal proceeding, it clearly covers the application of Chunilal, who as a neighbour was affected by the order complained of. In my opinion the word party in Rules 56 and 58 does not mean anything more than person [as it often does, cf. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, under the Heading Party ]; and it would clearly be giving considerable limitation to the right of appeal to read the rules otherwise. Thus, suppose a Committee has given permission to the owner of a building in a public street to put up a balcony projecting from his upper storey, and supposing the owner of the neighbouring building considers that this projection will be an obstruction to the safe and convenient passage along the street, he is not to be considered a party affected who should have a right of appeal asking the Municipality to override the permission, in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
