Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. But the question is whether the reference made under section 503(1) of the Act is an application at all ? Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has urged that the reference which is made by the Commissioner under section 503 of the Act is not an application or a petition at all. On the other hand, it is the discharge of a duty cast upon him by the statute itself. By making such a reference, says Mr. Walawalkar, the Commissioner is not applying to the Court to do a particular thing or to grant a particular relief in his favour. We are inclined to agree with this submission. An application proper understood is the voluntary act of applying to another person or authority for seeking a relief. This act may be in exercise of a right conferred upon the person concerned. Seldom, if at all, is it pursuant to a duty imposed upon a person or pursuant to a power given to a person or authority making the order or reference. It may be true, as has been mentioned by the Small Causes Court and as also has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Kerala State Electricity Board's case, that an application can also be called a petition. Even then a reference under section 503 of the Act cannot be said to be a petition. A petition is the action of formally asking, begging, supplicating, or humbly requesting (see the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Third Edition, page 1483). It is the supplication or a prayer or requesting the person to whom that application is made to grant some relief in favour of the person so applying.

17. Apart from this there is another section, namely section 506 of the Act, which says that instead of proceeding in any manner aforesaid for the recovery of any expenses or compensation of which the amount due has been ascertained as hereinbefore provided, the sum due may be recovered by a suit brought against the person liable for the same in any Court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, section 506 provides for an additional mode of recovery of the sum due which has been ascertained as provided in the earlier sections. The amount is ascertained in a reference made by the Commissioner under section 503. Section 503 itself does not provide for a mode of recovery. But section 491(2) does. If, therefore, the amount which has been found due by the machinery provided under section 503 of the Act is not paid or does not become entirely recoverable under section 491(2), then the Municipal Commissioner may file a suit for its recovery as provided for in section 506. But before he Commissioner proceeds to file a suit under section 506 of the Act for recovery of an amount which is covered by the provisions of section 491 read with section 503 of the Act, the amount claimable by the Municipal Commissioner must have been determined by the machinery provided under section 503. This has been explained by a judgment of this Court in Bombay Municipality v. Bhagwandas, .

18. The facts of that case disclosed that the owners were required to carry out repairs to the flooring of a building. On their failure the Municipal Commissioner got the work executed through an approved contractor and a demand was made for the expenses so incurred under section 491. The owners disputed the amount. The Corporation straightaway filed a suit for the recovery of the amount. The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit taking the view that a suit as contemplated by section 506 could be filed only after the amount due had been determined under section 503. This view of the Small Causes Court was challenged by the Corporation in this Court. Chandurkar, J., (as he then was) who decided the case concurred with the view taken by the Small Causes Court by noticing that there is a mandatory duty cast upon the Municipal Commissioner to refer a dispute arising under section 491 to the Court under section 503. Sub-section (2) of section 503 specifically requires the Commissioner to stay all proceedings for recovery of the amount until the amount to be recovered is ascertained under sub-section (1) of section 593. A dispute which arises has got to be resolved under section 503 and no suit, therefore, could be straightaway filed under section 506 till the dispute is resolved and the amount due is ascertained under section 503.

20. In sum it can be said that-

(1) Section 503 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act applies to a case covered by section 491 of the said Act; (2) In case of a dispute arising from a demand made under section 491 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, the Commissioner is under a statutory duty to refer the dispute to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court for determination; (3) The reference so made is not an application. Therefore, Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the said reference; (4) Till the decision on the reference under section 503, no recovery proceeding can be taken by the Commissioner either under section 491(2) or under section 506 of the Act; (5) After the amount is determined in a reference made under section 503, the amount can be recovered either under section 491(2) or under section 506 or under both the sections; (6) If a suit is filed under section 506 of the Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply and time will begin to run from the date of the order made under section 503 of the Act.