PRITPAL SINGH, J. - (1.) In this case the correctness of the law laid down in Garib Chand v. Municipal Committee, Budhlda (1979) 81 Pun LR 527, to the effect that an Executive Officer of a Municipal Committee would not be competent to file an appeal on behalf of the Municipal Committee till he is specifically authorised to do so even when a resolution has already been passed by the Municipal Committee to file the appeal, has been doubted by a Single Bench of this Court. The matter has, therefore, been referred to us for determination.
(2.) The facts leading to this reference are thus : In a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent Sadhu Singh, a decree was granted restraining the appellant-Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, from demolishing any portion of the house in dispute. The appeal filed by the Municipal Committee was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda on the ground that the Executive Officer who signed the power of attorney in favour of the counsel was not authorised by any resolution of the Municipal Committee to file the appeal. The Municipal Committee thereupon filed the second appeal in this Court which was admitted for hearing. When it came up for hearing before a single Bench, the learned respondent's counsel relied upon Garib Chand's case, (1979-81 Pun LR 527) (supra) in support of the proposition that in addition to the resolution of the Municipal Committee to file an appeal, it was necessary for the Municipal Committee to have specifically authorised the Executive Officer to file the same. In that case it had been held that an appeal which was filed by an Advocate on authorisation of the Executive Officer on behalf of the Municipal Committee, without the resolution of the Municipal Committee authorising the Executive Officer to file the appeal, was not competent notwithstanding the Municipal Committee having resolved to file the appeal. The Single Bench hearing the second appeal was of the opinion that the rule laid down in Garib Chand's case (supra) did not appeal to be correct and needed reconsideration.
(3.) The appellant Municipal Committee is a corporate body. Its proceedings are conducted by the resolutions of its members.There is, therefore, no controversy that for filing an appeal on behalf of the Municipal Committee a conscious decision has to be taken by its members, by a resolution, to do so. In the absence of such a resolution the appeal is not competent. The point for determination is whether in addition to a resolution of the Municipal Committee deciding to file the appeal its Executive Officer has to be separately authorised to file the same. In our opinion no such necessity exists. The powers of the Executive Officer are enumerated in Sec. 4 of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- "4. Powers of the Executive Officer. In a municipality in which an Executive Officer has been appointed - (a) the executive power for the purpose of carrying on the administration of the municipality shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made under this Act, or under the Municipal Act, vest in the Executive Officer;" A plain reading of the above provision would show that the function of the Executive Officer is to carry on the administration of the municipality. In other words, amongst other administrative functions, he has to implement the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee. The decision to file an appeal on behalf of the Municipal Committee is indeed not an administrative function and so this decision has to be taken by the Municipal Committee itself, but once the Municipal Committee decides to file an appeal, and passes a resolution in respect thereof, it becomes the statutory function of the Executive Officer to file the appeal. No further authorisation in his favour by the Municipal Committee through a separate resolution appears to be necessary. Evidently an appeal becomes maintainable when a resolution is passed by the Municipal Committee deciding to file the same. But to implement the resolution the Executive Officer is competent to file the appeal having been conferred statutory powers to do so by virtue of Sec. 4 of the Act. To say that a separate authorisation on behalf of the Municipal Committee in favour of the Executive Officer to file the appeal is required to ignore the provisions of Sec.4. We are, therefore, of the candid opinion that as soon as the Municipal Committee decides by a resolution to file an appeal on its behalf it becomes the administrative duty of the Executive Officer under Sec.4 to carry out the decision taken in the resolution and it is wholly unnecessary for the Municipal Committee to confer a separate authorisation upon the Executive Officer to carry out his administrative function which he is otherwise bound to do, clothed with the statutory powers by virtue of Sec.4 of the Act.;