K. M. Dayal, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS is a plantiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the demand regarding the Projection Fee levied by the defendant, 'Nagar Palika' was invalid and a prohibitory injunction was sought restraining it from realising the same. The brief facts of the case are that Projection Fee was levied by the Nagar Palika under the bye-laws dated 13-3-1962 framed under Section 297 of the Municipalities Act. The learned counsel for the appellant firstly argued that the bye-laws have not been legally confirmed by the State Government as required by Section 301 of the Municipalities Act. The bye-laws were sought to be framed under Section 297 of the Municipalities Act. They were required to be confirmed by the State Government under Section 301. According to the learned counsel for the appellant there was no confirmation. The defendant relied upon confirmation by the Commissioner of the Division. According to the learned counsel, the State Government could not delegate that power as it was prohibited by Section 327 of the Municipalities Act. The Courts below have held that the State Government delegated the powers under Section 301 sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) to the Divisional Commissioners in respect of the municipalities falling in their respective divisions. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced the Municipal Manual. On page 336 of Part II therein, it is mentioned that the powers of the State Government had been delegated to the Commissioners of the Divisions under Section 327 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. That also mentioned the power under sub-section (2) of Section 301 to confirm the bye-laws made by the Boards of the Municipalities 'within their respective Divisions.' Under the circumstances it cannot be said that there was no delegation of the power under Section 301 of the Municipalities Act. The powers for which there is a prohibition against delegation are mentioned in Schedule VII of the Act. Sections 297 and 301 do not find place in the Schedule VII. Under the circumstances there was no bar and the State Government had a right to delegate its powers to the Commissioner.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, however argued that the delegation under Section 227 could be made only in respect of 'any specified municipality or municipalities.' THE learned counsel argued that the municipalities which were to be governed by the delegation should have been specified in the order. According to him the word 'specified' governs both the words 'Municipality' and 'Municipalities'. For convenience of discussion Section 327 is reproduced below : "THE State Government may, by notification, delegate to the Prescribed Authority in respect of any specified municipality or municipalities within its jurisdiction to any one or more of the power vested in it by the Act, with the exception of the powers detailed in Schedule VII." According to the learned counsel municipalities have not been specified in the order. The delegation would be invalid and will not be under Section 327. I am unable to uphold that view. From the wordings of the 'notification' it appears that the municipalities for which the powers have been delegated are specified in it. It reads : "The power to confirm under sub-section (2) of Section 301 of the said Act, bye-laws made by the Boards of the Municipalities within their respective divisions".;