BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this appeal, Halvad Nagar Panchayat has assailed the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar on 9-2-1973, below Ex. 1, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 1972. This appeal is filed under Sec. 83 of (The Indian) Lunacy Act, 1912 ("the Act" for short hereinafter) and also under the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ("code" for short hereinafter ). The controversy in the present appeal is shrunk down to a very narrow compass, relating to the interpretation of the provisions of Secs. 26, 86, 95 and also Rule 18 (2) (a) of the Bombay lunacy Rules, 1921 ("the Rules" for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) THE material facts giving birth to the present appeal may be stated. ( 3 ) THE proceedings before the District Court, at Surendranagar, have arisen out of the reception order dated 29-8-1972, passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Wadhwan, in respect of maintenance of the lunatic Madan Badriji, of Halvad. The learned Judicial Magistrate, * against the order passed by Respondent No. 1 directing the Appellant to pay costs of maintenance of a lunatic to the Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Ahmedabad. First Class, Wadhwan, thereafter handed over the papers to the District Court for passing order of maintenance of the lunatic for the period he was detained in the Mental Hospital. The District Court had issued notices to the relatives and to Halvad Nagar Panchayat also. Secretary of the appellant- panchayat filed his objection, Ex. 3, supported by his own affidavit, at Ex. ( 4 ) THE impugned order came to be passed on 9-2-1973, by the learned assistant Judge, Surendranagar who directed the appellant Panchayat to pay the maintenance at the rate of Re. 1. 50 Ps. per day to the Superintendent, mental Hospital, Ahmedabad, towards the maintenance of the lunatic Madan badriji, from the date of reception order, i. e. , 29-8-1972 till he is discharged. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Panchayat has come up before this Court in this First Appeal, challenging its legality and validity. 4. In order to appreciate the merits of the present appeal, it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Panchayat has come up before this Court in this First Appeal, challenging its legality and validity. 4. In order to appreciate the merits of the present appeal, it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 26 of the Act provided that when any lunatic has been admitted into an asylum in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 25, the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, shall, on the application of the person in charge of the asylum, be competent to pass order for payment of the cost of an maintenance of the lunatic in the asylum, and may from time to time direct that any sum of money payable under such order shall be recovered from the estate of the lunatic or of any person legally bound to maintain him. If the Court finds that the lunatic has no sufficient property and that no person legally bound to maintain such lunatic has sufficient means for payment of such cost, the Court shall certify the same instead of making such order for the payment of the cost, as aforesaid. ( 5 ) THE grievance is that the District Court has failed to hold proper inquiry and has, wrongly, fastened the appellant with the liability for maintenance. This contention appears to be full of substance. No doubt, it is true, that under the provisions of Rule 18 (2) (a) of the Rules where the local authorities are liable under any law for the time-being in force for the maintenance and treatment of lunatics resident in the area within their jurisdiction and who are committed to Government Mental Hospital, fees for their maintenance shall be charged as per the rules mentioned in Rule 18. Local authority, thus, could be directed to pay maintenance of such lunatics, provided, the conditions and requirements under Sec. 26 of the Act are observed. It is incumbent upon the competent court : (A) to consider as to whether the property of the lunatic is sufficient or not; and (b) as to whether the person legally bound to maintain the lunatic has sufficient means or not for the payment of such costs of maintenance of such lunatic. It is incumbent upon the competent court : (A) to consider as to whether the property of the lunatic is sufficient or not; and (b) as to whether the person legally bound to maintain the lunatic has sufficient means or not for the payment of such costs of maintenance of such lunatic. Therefore, on the application of in-charge of the asylum, the Court can make order for the payment of costs for the maintenance of the lunatic in the asylum either from the property of the lunatic or property of the person legally bound to maintain such lunatic. If at any time the Court is satisfied that the lunatic has no sufficient property and that no person legally bound to maintain such lunatic has sufficient means for payment of costs of such lunatic, the Court shall certify the same instead of making such order for payment of costs, as aforesaid. Therefore, before directing the local authority under the aforesaid Rule 18 (2) (a) of the Rules, inquiry as contemplated under Sec. 26 of the Act is required to be made, thoroughly. It appears from the record that no such thorough inquiry is made by the district Court. ( 6 ) SECONDLY, the District Court has also committed a serious error in not examining properly the provisions of Secs. 86 and 95 of the Act. Under the provisions of Sec. 86 of the Act, the Court is competent to pass order for payment of costs of maintenance against the Government in the circumstances prescribed therein. This provision in Chapter VII of the Act relating to lunatics is also lost sight of by the learned Assistant Judge. Likewise, the District Court has also failed to examine the provisions of Sec. 95 which relates to the pension of lunatic payable by the Government. Section 95 of the Act reads as under :"95. Pension of lunatic payable by Government. Likewise, the District Court has also failed to examine the provisions of Sec. 95 which relates to the pension of lunatic payable by the Government. Section 95 of the Act reads as under :"95. Pension of lunatic payable by Government. (1) When any sum is payable in respect of pay, pension, gratuity, or other similar allowance to any person (by the Central Government or any State Government) and the person to whom the sum is payable is certified by a Magistrate to be a lunatic, the Government Officer under whose authority such sum would be payable if the payee were not a lunatic may pay so much of the said sum as he thinks fit to the person having charge, of the lunatic, and may pay the surplus, if any, or such part thereof, as he thinks fit for the maintenance of such members of the lunatics family as are dependent on him for maintenance. (2) (The (. . .) Government concerned) shall be discharged of all liability in respect of any amounts paid in accordance with this section. " ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the lunatic was working in the primary Health Centre, at Halvad, at the time of reception order. The appellant had raised a contention that the expenditure for the maintenance of the lunatic must be borne by the Government or Wadhwan Municipality or by the brother of the lunatic. The grievance or the complaint of the appellant was not, thoroughly, investigated into, as required under the law. The lunatic was serving in the Primary health Centre, at Halvad, and, therefore, inquiry relating to his pay, pension, gratuity and other similar allowance was required to be made in the light of the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Act. The District Court has, unfortunately, committed a serious error in not appreciating the relevant provisions of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order is required to be quashed and the matter is required to be remanded to the district Court, at Surendranagar, for fresh inquiry and adjudication. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Court, at Surendranagar, for hearing afresh in accordance with law in view of the aforesaid observations. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Court, at Surendranagar, for hearing afresh in accordance with law in view of the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs. .