KUNHAHMED Vs. MATTANCHERRY MUNICIPALITY
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THESE second appeals arise out of three suits by the respondent, the executive authority of Mattancherry Municipality, for the realisation from the appellant, of property tax for three years. The point taken here, was that the suits were not instituted in compliance with S. 354 (g)of the Cochin Municipal Act, 1113, which reads as follows: "the executive authority may with the approval of the Council institute and prosecute any suit or withdraw from or compromise any suit or claim, which has been instituted or made in the name of the Municipal council or of the executive authority. " In the lower appellate court, the respondent filed a copy of the resolution which was passed by the Municipal Council in approval of the institution of the suits by the respondent, which was admitted as an additional document. I do not find my way to interfere with the discretion exercised by the appellate court in admitting it. The resolution was actually passed a few days after the suits were filed.
(2.)THE question is whether this was sufficient compliance with S. 354 (g) aforesaid. THE word "approval" has been defined in black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, as "the act of confirming, ratifying, sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. "
The word "permit" may have a different connotation as giving leave. Though the word "permit" does not occur in the provision quoted, the distinction between "approval" and "permission" may be useful as elucidating the scope and content of the former. The distinction has been explained thus by the Supreme Court in The lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen AIR. 1961 S. C. 860 at p. 864: "approval" according to its dictionary meaning suggests that what has to be approved has already taken place; it is in the nature of ratification of what has already happened or taken place. The word 'approval' in contrast with the words 'previous permission' shows that the action is taken first and approval obtained afterwards. " In Shakir Hussain v. Chandoo Lal AIR. 1931 All. 567 sulaiman, Ag. C. J. as he then was, dealing with 0. 21, R. 122 as introduced in allahabad, which provided that subject to the approval by the Court, the attaching officer may make such arrangement as may be most convenient and economic, observed that in the case of approval, the act holds good until disapproved while in the case of permission, the act does not become effective until permission is obtained. The same view was held in Mohammad Ali v. The state of Uttar Pradesh AIR. 1958 All. 681. I hold that the approval of the municipal Council, though made after the institution of the suits was sufficient for complying with S. 354 (g) of the Act. The suits cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with the above. The second appeals are dismissed with costs. Dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.