Judgment :- 1. The short question that arises for decision in this case is whether the Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation can delegate his power to file a complaint to initiate proceeding against any person who is charged with any offence against the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act Rules, Bye-laws or Regulations. The Commissioner's power of initiating civil and criminal actions etc., is provided for in S.425 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 Act 30 of 1961 (shortly stated the Act). The Commissioner's power of initiating civil and criminal actions etc., is provided for in S.425 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 Act 30 of 1961 (shortly stated the Act). The section reads of follows: "Provisions respecting institution, etc., civil and criminal actions and obtaining legal advice - The Commissioner may - (a) take, or withdraw from, proceedings against any parson who is charged with (i) any offence against this Act, the Rules, bye-laws or regulations; (ii) any offence which affects or is likely to affect any property or interest of the corporation or the due administration of this Act; (iii) committing any nuisance whatsoever; (b) compound any offence against this Act, the rules, bye-laws or regulations which may, by rules made by the government, be declared compoundable; (c) defend himself if sued or joined as a party in any proceedings in respect of the conduct of elections or in respect of the electoral roll; (d) defend, or compromise any appeal against an assessment or tax; (e) take, withdraw from or compromise proceedings under S.414 and 422 for the recovery of expenses or compensation claimed to be due to the corporation; (f) withdraw or compromise any claim for a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees against any person in respect of a penalty payable under a contract entered into with such person by the Commissioner, or with the approval of the standing committee any such claim for any sum exceeding five hundred rupees; committee, any such (g) with the approval of the council, defend any suit or other legal proceedings brought against the corporation or against any municipal authority, officer or servant in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by them respectively in their official capacity; (h) with the approval of the standing committee, compromise any claim, suit or other legal proceeding brought against the corporation or against any municipal authority, officer or servant, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done as aforesaid; (i) with the approval of the standing committee, institute and prosecute any suit or withdraw from or compromise any suit or claim, other than a claim of the description specified in clause (f), which has been instituted or made in the name of the corporation or of the commissioner; 0) obtain much legal advice and assistance as he may from time to time think it necessary or expedient to obtain, on as he may be desired by the council or the standing committee to obtain, for any of the purposes mentioned in the foregoing clauses of this section or for securing the lawful exercise or discharge or any power or duty vesting in or imposed upon any municipal authority, officer or servant." 2. The expression 'take proceedings' as used in this section means instituting a complaint and does not mean causing a complaint to be filed as held by the Supreme Court in construing an identical provision in S.481 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 59 of 1949 in the case Mangalal Chunilal v. Maganlal (AIR. 1968 S.C. 822). 3. In that case the Supreme Court overruled the contrary view of the Bombay High Court in State v. Manilal Jethalal (AIR. 1953 Bom. 365). In the Bombay case, speaking for a Division Bench of that court, Bavedakar, J., had said at page 368: "One can see easily why the word take' is used. It was desired to combine in one clause the two powers, the power to launch proceedings and the power to withdraw proceedings, and if the words "withdraw from proceedings" were used, it was not easy to use the words "order proceedings to be taken" in combination with the words "withdraw proceedings". That was why, in our view, the words "take or withdraw from proceedings" were used in the City of Bombay Municipal Act. If the legislature had in such a case really wanted that the complaint should actually be either of the commissioner or an officer empowered by him, it would have been perfectly easy to use the words which find place in several Acts, for example, "except upon a complaint in writing of the commissioner or an officer to whom he has delegated his powers". On the whole, therefore, we think that we should interpret the words "take proceedings" to mean "order proceedings to be taken"." The Supreme Court said about this observation in the case cited supra (AIR. 1968 S. C. 822 at p. 824): "But we are not free to interpret the words "take proceedings" to mean "order proceedings to be taken" because the word "take" is an English word and we can only ascribe to it a meaning which it bears in the English language." 4. On the basis of the Supreme Court decision and in view of the specific provision in S.15 of the Act which prohibits the Commissioner from delegating his powers, duties or functions under S.425 of the Act, the petitioner in this Cr. On the basis of the Supreme Court decision and in view of the specific provision in S.15 of the Act which prohibits the Commissioner from delegating his powers, duties or functions under S.425 of the Act, the petitioner in this Cr. R.P. (who is the accused in C.C. 3835 of 1971 before the Sub Magistrate of Ernakulam) is challenging the decision of the learned Sub Magistrate who had held that the Commissioner could validly delegate his power of instituting a complaint to any other Corporation official. The learned counsel appearing for the corporation supported the Magistrate's decision as according to him S.419 of the concerned Act enabled the Commissioner to make such delegation. Ss. 15 and 419 of the Act are extracted below: "S.15. Delegation of commissioner's ordinary powers:-The Commissioner may delegate to the holder of any municipal office any of his ordinary powers, duties or functions except those conferred or imposed upon, or vested in him by the following provisions, namely. S.24 (3), 67 (2), 68, 69, 72, 73, 96, 97,155.263, 283, 299, 300, 338, 343, 354, 406, 425 and R.11 and 12 of Schedule III: Provided that (a) such delegation shall be in writing and shall specify the name or official designation of the person to whom the delegation is made; (b) such delegation is reported to the council; (c) the commissioner shall not delegate his power under S.79 to make on behalf or the corporation any contract involving an expenditure exceeding one thousand rupees; (d) when the commissioner delegates under this section any power or duty which is exercisable or is required to be performed subject to the approval of any other municipal authority, commissioner shall send a copy of the order of delegation to such authority." "S. 419. Period of limitation for making complaints. Period of limitation for making complaints. No person shall be liable to be tried for any offence against any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it, unless complaint is made within six months from the commission of the offence, by the police or the commissioner or by a person authorised in this behalf by the counsel or the standing committee or the commissioner: Provided that failure to take out a licence, obtain permission or secure registration under this Act shall for the purposes of this section be deemed a continuing offence until the, expiration of the period, if any, for which the licence, permission or registration is required and if no period is specified, complaint may be made at any time within twelve months from the commencement of the offence." 5. We have no doubt that the contention of the petitioner is correct and the decision of the Magistrate wrong. The commissioner's power of delegation of his powers, duties and functions are provided for in S.15 of the Act and circumscribed by the provisions therein. The delegation of such powers, duties and functions under S.425 of the Act is prohibited by the express provision in S.15 of the Act. S.419 deals only with the period of limitation for making complaints. It is impossible to read into the latter part of the said section an enabling power allowing the Commissioner to delegate his power to make complaints. Construing S.419 as a provision enabling the Commissioner to delegate his functions would render S.15 otiose. 6. In this case, the respondent, who is a Health Inspector in the service of the Corporation of Cochin, had filed a complaint against the revision petitioner before the Sub Magistrate under S.299 of the Act. When the Revisioner Petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the Commissioner alone could institute the complaint the impugned decision was rendered by the Magistrate overruling such objection Therefore, this revision petition was filed. 7. We allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the Sub Magistrate and quash the proceeding in C.C. 3835 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Magistrate Ernakulam.