9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f property tax, the petitioners submitted objections under Section 147-of the Act. Those objections were heard and rejected by the Assessment Officer of the respondent Corporation in pursuance of powers conferred upon him by respondent No. 2 by the order dt. 13-1-1982 passed by him in that behalf. The petitioner 8 contend that respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, had no power to delegate the powers conferred upon him by Section 148 of the Act to any other officer of the Corporation and consequently the orders passed by the Assessment Officer overruling the objections submitted by the petitioners being without jurisdiction, are null and void. 3. In the return, it is contended that the Commissioner is empowered under the provision of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: Municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise the powers of Commissioner. (4) Any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner by this Act may be exercised, performed or discharged under the Commissioner's control, and subject to his superintendence and to such conditions and limitations, if any, as he may think fit to prescribe, by any Municipal Officer, whom the Commissioner may generally or specially empower in writing in this behalf. Now, power to determine objections to valuation is conferred on the Commissioner by Section 148 of the Act. That this power, under Section 148 of the Act to decide objections is a quasi-judicial power, was not disputed before us on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pealable to the District Court under Section 149 of the Act. While conferring power on the Commissioner to delegate his functions under the Act, the legislature has not chosen to limit that power to administrative functions only. Section 69(41 of the Act expressly confers upon the Commissioner the power to delegate any power conferred upon him by the Act, to any Municipal Officer. That the control and superintendence envisaged in Section 69(4) of the Act cannot bear the meaning, which they in delegation of administrative functions, is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1965 SC 1486 (supra). In thatcase. while construing a similar provision in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. the Supreme Court observed as follows: -- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 69(4) of the Act by the Commissioner is to be exercised subject to the control and superintendence of the Commissioner, rules out delegation of quasi-judicial power conferred upon the Commissioner by Section 148 of the Act. Such a construction would also not be reasonable because the legislature has chosen to confer power upon the Commissioner by Section 69(4) of the Act, to delegate any of his functions under the Act, without any reservation, presumably because, in a city, where a Corporation is established, the Commissioner cannot possibly exercise each and every power conferred upon him by the Act. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the objections to the valuation preferred by the petitioners have been decided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
