JUDGMENT
Rajamannar, C.J.
1. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs which he seeks in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 19 of the Mad-ras District Municipalities Act, subject to the provisions of the Act the Municipal Administration shall vest in the Council. Section 23 provides for the council constituting committees for the purpose of exercising such powers, discharging such duties or performing such functions as it may delegate to them. , It may also appoint individual councillors, or committees, to enquire into and report or advise on any matters which it may refer to them. Under Section 25, the Council is given power to make rules in regard ‘inter alia’ to the constitution and procedure of committees and the delegation of its powers, duties or functions to such committees. What the Municipal Council in this case did was to constitute committees and to delegate some of its powers and functions to these committees. This delegation was made by means of two resolutions dated 8th November 1948 and 9th March 1950. In the absence of anything to show that the Council exceeded its powers in making this delegation which prima facie it had power to make under Section 23 of the Act, we must presume that the delegation was yalidly made. The contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings of these committees should be sent to the Council to be discussed and if need be, to be modified or even set aside. We cannot agree with this contenlion. Under Section 23 of the Act, two classes of committees are contemplated (1) committees to which the Council delegates some of its powers and duties and functions and (2) committees which are constituted only to enquire into and report or advise on any particular matter referred to them. So far as the proceedings of the latter class of committees are concerned, undoubtedly the Council can have the final word. The proceedings of such committees are only advisory. But the decisions and actions of the committees to which the Council had delegated its powers, duties and functions in any behalf will be binding on the Council.
2. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rule 12 of Schedule 3. This rule occurs among the rules regarding proceedings of the Council and the mode of transacting business. The rule runs thus: “The proceedings of every committee appointed by the Council shall be recorded in writing and submitted to the Council.” This rule, in our opinion, does not affect the powers of the committee to which there has been a delegation of powers or functions in any behalf. It only provides for the recording of the proceedings in writing and for the sub-mission of the proceedings recorded to the Council for information. The petitioner does not state in the affidavit filed by him jn support of his application that the committees have failed to act according to Rule 12. His real complaint is that these proceedings are made final and are not subject to further consideration by the Council. Rule 12 does not help the petitioner in any way. There is no ground therefore to either quash the two resolutions above mentioned or to direct the Council to place all the proceedings of the Committee before the Council.
3. The applications are therefore dismissed.