JUDGEMENT J.N.Hore, J. :- This is an application under S.482 of the Cr.P.C,1973 for quashing the proceeding pending before the learned Senior Municipal and Metropolitan Magistrate, 1st Court, Calcutta being Case No.3007B of 1981. 2. On 26-9-81 Dr. S.S. Mondal, Sanitary Officer and Borough Health Officer, Corporation of Calcutta, filed a complaint against petitioner Sm. Rajmohini Jhamb under S.437(1)(b) read with S.537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act,1951 before the learned Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta " for using or permitting to be used premises No.1, Alipore Road, Calcutta for selling storing, packing, pressing, cleaning, preparing or manufacturing by any process whatever workplace run with electricity which is in the opinion of the Corporation dangerous to life, health or property and likely to create nuisance without a licence from the Commissioner for the year ending on 31st March,1981 in contravention of S.437 of Act XXXIII (W.B.C.) of 1951." 3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Municipal Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons on the petitioner requiring her to appear before him on 25-1-83. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule. 4. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged three points before us : (1) Complainant Dr. S.S. Mondal, Sanitary Officer and Borough Health Officer was not competent to initiate the prosecution or file the complaint in the absence of valid delegation of power by the Commissioner to the complainant. In the absence of any such valid delegation the prosecution is not maintainable in law and cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad. (2) The allegations in the petition of complaint in a printed form are vague and unintelligible. The complaint does not specify as to which particular purpose for which the premises is alleged to be used is in the opinion of the Corporation dangerous of life, health or property or likely to create a nuisance. The learned Magistrate even at this stage of issuing process was required to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint and if the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to the contents of the complaint he would not have issued the process at all as the same is not make any sense and the allegations are inconsistent with each other. (3) In respect of the business of petrol pump which is carried on at the said premises under the name and style of 'Puspa Bagh Service Station' there is not only a trade licence issued by the Corporation of Calcutta but also there are other statutory licences issued by the State Government and the Central Government including the Explosive Licence. There is no requirement of any Health Licence under S.437 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 nor was any licence ever required to be taken by the Corporation of Calcutta. The Corporation of Calcutta has not issued any Public Notification notifying the purpose which was considered to be dangerous under S.437(1)(b) by the Corporation. In any event, the running of a petrol pump which is done after obtaining licences from all the concerned authorities cannot be regarded as one of the purposes mentioned in S. 437(1)(b) of the Act and any opinion of the Corporation of Calcutta to the contrary is unreasonable and capricious and not sustainable in law. 5. The first point that has been urged by Mr. Ghosh has considerable force and merits acceptance. The relevant portion of S. 585 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 reads as follows : "585 The Corporation may - (a) take or withdraw from proceedings against any person who is charged with - (i) any offence against this Act or any rule or by-law made thereunder : (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." 6. Under S. 585 read with Ss. 28 and 30, it is the Commissioner who alone for and on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation can present a petition of complaint for violation of any law under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and the rules, regulations and by-laws made thereunder. Under Section 34 the Commissioner can delegate to any Municipal Officer or servant the power to prosecute anybody. Complainant Dr. S.S. "Mondal, Sanitary and Borough Health Officer, did not make any averment in the petition of complaint that he was filing the complaint on the basis of delegation of power made to him by the Commissioner nor did he produce any document in support of any such delegation of power. 7. Complainant Dr. S.S. "Mondal, Sanitary and Borough Health Officer, did not make any averment in the petition of complaint that he was filing the complaint on the basis of delegation of power made to him by the Commissioner nor did he produce any document in support of any such delegation of power. 7. In Ballabhadas Agarwala v. J.C. Chakraborty, AIR 1960 SC 576 : (1960 Cri LJ 752) the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of S. 537, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 which are similar to those of S. 585 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 are not merely enabling but they are obligatory in the sense that no legal proceeding under that Act can be instituted except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The intention of the Legislature in enacting that section was to confer a power on the Municipality which power must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not otherwise. It would be against the tenor and scheme of the Municipal Act to hold that S. 537 is merely enabling in nature and that any private person may institute a legal proceeding under the Municipal Act independently irrespective of the provisions of the Act. It was further held that the conviction of the accused on the basis of a complaint filed by the Health Officer of the Howrah Municipality who was not duly empowered as the delegated authority to institute criminal proceedings under the Act on the date on which he made the complaint could not be sustained. The absence of a proper complaint was not a mere defect or irregularity curable under S, 537, Cr. P.C.; it affected jurisdiction and initiation of proceeding. 8. As already pointed out, there is nothing in the petition of complaint which is in a printed form to indicate that the Sanitary and Borough Health Officer was duly, empowered as the delegated authority to institute a criminal proceeding under the Act. Nor any document was produced in support of the same. 9. There was, therefore, no proper complaint before the learned Magistrate on which cognizance could be taken. The cognizance taken by the learned Municipal Magistrate on the said improper petition of complaint is bad in law and the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. We need not, therefore, consider the other points urged by Mr. Ghosh. 10. The cognizance taken by the learned Municipal Magistrate on the said improper petition of complaint is bad in law and the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. We need not, therefore, consider the other points urged by Mr. Ghosh. 10. In the result, the revisional application is allowed and the Rule made absolute. The impugned proceeding in Case No. 3007B of 1981 pending before the learned Senior Municipal and Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is quashed. 11. SANKARBHATTACHARYYA, J. :-I agree. Application allowed.