HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. IMAMUDDIN PROPRIETOR OF TAFREEH DECCAN HOTEL HYDERABAD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH P.RANGA RAO, SANITARY
IMAMUDDIN, PROPRIETOR OF TAFREEH DECCAN HOTEL, HYDERABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
Basi Reddy, J. -
(1.) The short question that arises for our consideration in this revision petition filed on behalf of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is whether a Sanitary Inspector is competent to file a complaint for an offence under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (No. II of 1956) (which will be referred to as "the Act"). The answer to this question is to be found in two sections of the Act viz., Sections 674 and 119. Before adverting to these provisions, we shall refer to the farts which have green rise to this revision petition.
(2.) One Sri P. Ranga Rao, Sanitary Inspector, Ward. No. 22 (B) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, filed a complaint before the First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad, against one Imamuddin, Proprietor of Tafreen-Deccan Hotel, Hyderabad, for an offence punishable under Section 596 read with Section 521(1) of the Act alleging that on 4/04/1963 the said Imamuddin was found running a hotel named Tafreeh-Deccan in the city of Hyderabad, without obtaining a licence and had thereby contravened the provisions of Section 521 (1) of the Act. Along with the complaint, the Sanitary Inspector filed a copy of the proceedings No. ODP/100/61 dated 13-10-1961 to show that the Municipal Commissioner, acting under Section 119-of the Act, had delegated the power vested in him under Section 674 of the Act to Sanitary Inspectors in general, to launch prosecutions in respect of offences under the Act.
(3.) The learned Magistrate, however, declined to take cognizance of the case, taking the view that the Sanitary Inspector was not competent to file a complaint because the Commissioner had no authority to delegate his power to launch prosecutions to any other Municipal officer. In reaching that conclusion, the Magistrate followed an observation of Mirza J. in Rustum Kiyani v. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Criminal Revn. Case No. 63S of 1961 (Andh-Pra.). That observation is as follows:-- ".........under Section 674 the Commissioner is the only person who is competent to take, or withdraw from, proceedings against any person, who is charged with any offence under the Act and I do not think that Section 119 permits him to delegate his powers, to any of his subordinates to take, or withdraw from, the proceedings." Relying on the above observation, the learned Magistrate held that the Commissioner was not authorised to delegate his power of prosecuting offenders to his subordinate Sri P. Ranga Rao, and consequently the latter was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the Commissioner. The Magistrate concluded : "So this complaint is not tenable. The Court cannot take cognizance of this offence on the complaint filed by 311 unauthorised person, who is not an aggrieved person.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.