Api;J 9 v. THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL

under the Act. Shri R. N. Parikh was eventually appointed the Arbitrator under the Act. He finalised the Scheme under the Act of 1915. The Borough the Ahmedabad Municipal was converted into Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act of 1949 with effect from July 1, 1950. The Act of 1915 was repealed by the Act which came into force from April 1, 1957. The said Arbitrator notified to the appellants a memo randum dated March 23, 1958, extracting his decision in respect of the said Scheme, in so far as it affected the appellants. The Government of Bombay constituted a Bo.ird of Appeal under the Act, consisting of three persons whom it is not necessary to specify. The appellants appeals against the award of the said Arbitrator. The said Board of Appeal heard the appellants' appeals, as also appeals by other persons, in all 151 appeals, in respect of the said Scheme. It is from the decision, dated January 23; 1959, of the said Board of Appeal that the appellants have appealed to this Court, on obtaining special leave.

Section 30 of the Act of 1915 lays down the duties of the Arbitrator in some detail, running into ten clauses, and a number of sub-clauses. The decision of the Arbitrator, except on matters covered by sub-sections (3A), (3B), (3C), (4), (6) and (9) of s. 30 have been declared by s. 31 to be final. The matters in respect of which his decision has not been declared to be final, as aforesaid, the Arbitrator's conclusions have been characterised as proposals by s. 32 of the Act of 1915, and those matters-were to to the Tribunal of Arbitration, be submitted It would constituted under s. 33 (1), for its decision. thus appear that on certain matters which came under the purview of the Arbitrator's powers, the decision of the Arbitrator was final, and in other matters they were merely proposals to be submitted for the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration. When the /953 Bihari M i/11 v. Ahmtdohad 11unici· fJa/ Corporatit:m Smha C. J. 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. later.

Under Act of 1915 was repealed by the Act, it saved certain orders and proceedings by s. 90, which will be set out and discussed the Act, s. 31 contemplates the appointment of a Town Planning Officer, who is a substitute of the Arbitrator under the Act of 1915. Section 32 lays down in great detail the duties of the Town Planning Officer, which may be equated withs. 30 of the Act of 1915. Section 33 declares certain decisions except under s. il2 (1), els. (v), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xiii), of the Town Planning Officer to be final and conclusive and binding on all persons, while decisions of the Town Planning Officer, under the above clauses, are subject to appeal to the Board of Appeal, under s. !H, to he constituted under s. 35. appear that the Act has equated the Arbitrator under the Act of 1915 with the Town Planning Officer and the Tribunal of Arbitration with the Board of Appeal. Though under the former Act the Arbitrator is a part of the Tribunal of <\rbi· tration, under the Act certain decisions of the Town Planning Officer are appealable to the Board of Appeal.

It is common ground that Shri Parikh, the Arbitrator under the Act of Hll 5, has not been, terms, appointed the Town Planning Officer under the Act. It will After setting out the relevant provisions of the Act of 191 !\ and the Act, it is necessarv to State that the decision given by the Arbitrato'r, Shri R.!\'. Parikh, functioning under the Act of 1915, cou Id be reviewed by the Tribunal of Arbitration, but as there was nv such Tribunal in existence on and after that date, the appellants preferred appra I; to the Board of Appeal, constituted under the Act. Those appeals were disposed of by the Board by its It is the legality of order dated January 23, 195!l. that order that is in question before us. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that they preferred their appeals to the Board, which • ·- 196J Biha,i Mills v. Ahmedabad Munici~ pal Corporation Sinh• C. J. •• - - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 919 they were advised was the only appellate authority in existence, and which mistakenly to be competent tribunal to deal with the appeals.

It was further argued that on a true construction of the provisions of the Act and the Act of 1915, it is cle.ar that the Board of Appeal had no jurisdiction. to render any judgment in respect of the deci~ions or proposals of the Arbitrator. In our opinion, this contention is well ·founded. Reliance wa:s placed in this connection on the provisions ofs. 90 of the Act, the relevant portions of whieh may be set out below: "(1) The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act ...... any appointment made of an arbitrator, any proceedings pending before the Arbitrator ... under the repealed Act shall, in so far as it is not inconsis tent with this Act, continue in thereunder and provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to such ...... " procee mgs...... . d. It is clear that the saving clause was effective to continue the appointment of the Arbitrator made under the repraled Act, <tnd also to keep alive the proceedings before him.

But the proposals made by him had to be dealt with by the Tribunal of Arbitration, which was not continued by the saving clause, aforesaid. The board of Appeal constituted under s. 3~ of the Act was competent to deal with any decision of the Town Planning Officer, but the Arbitrator under the old Act did not ipso facto become, without an express order of the Government appointing him, a Town Planning Officer; and any decision or order by the Arbitrator would not have the effect of an order by the latter. That lacuna - •;920 .SUPREME COURT REPOR':['S [1964] VOL. .• doe~ ·~o~ appear. to . have, been ·· re~ved: by· ,aI)y .:subsequent legislation or •order oLthe Government· 1953 · . ilourMms .• · of. Gujrat, under the : Act. -Some ; Jacunae .were , · 41un ;byd M : ,:i c.:pora1~':." . .. discovered · - - · ·'''"" c.·J .. .... Bombay ToWn .: Planning (Amendment, and-Pro· the. working , of the Act : and the . Government of Maharashtra came. out -. with the · Officer in this, Act. shall include ·, ceedirigs Validation) .Act, ,1960 jl\faharashtra Act . , )QCIVof 1960).

By~' 2,. sub-s •. (4) ·of this Act, it - has been provided that "reference to Town _Planning ·reference to an . _Arbitrator whose appointment, is 'continued in force. · under sub·section (:!)",.set out above •. No such action.was taken by the Government ·of Gujrat, nor . ·any validating Act passed by the· Gujrat Legislature. It is thus manifest that the appeals"':preferred by _the appellants ag11ins! the' order of the ·Arbitrator as· ; such did not- lie to the Board ,of: Appeal, and, there fore., the Board was incompetent. to ,deal with them, : with the r_esult- thar the, orders . purported to have been pass.ed br,,th~ -Board• on those. appeals are without jurisdiction. We need not go· into the further ·.question a' -to- tlie effect. of the orders .of the' Arbitrator which · had : been challenged by -_the ._appellants as it now appears without effect. In the result, these. appeals are allowed. But in view of the fact that. the appellants themselve8 were at least partly rc: Sponsible for. makmg those infructuous appeals, there will be rio order_ as }o · costs in this Court. _ · · -;-'lt: • A1~iala allowed • - j -- •