Ultra vires municipal resolutions and non-revival of bathing rights limit injunction relief in a public tank dispute.

Municipal resolutions passed without valid statutory delegation are ultra vires and unenforceable, so they may be restrained by injunction. The document also notes that repeal of an earlier prohibition on bathing did not revive any extinguished public right, because repeal alone cannot restore the prior right under the general clauses rule. Although the bye-law regulating bathing in public tanks was treated as beyond the enabling power and therefore ineffective, injunctive relief still required a subsisting personal legal right. On the facts, the association could not rely on a revived general right to bathe or swim, so relief was limited to restraint against the unauthorized resolutions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the resolutions of the municipal committees relating to the women's club and the stoppage of the association's use of the tank were without authority and liable to be restrained; (ii) whether the association had a legal right and locus standi to seek an injunction against the resolution stopping swimming and to challenge the continued operation of the bye-law governing bathing in public tanks.

Issue (i): Whether the resolutions of the municipal committees relating to the women's club and the stoppage of the association's use of the tank were without authority and liable to be restrained.

Analysis: The powers of the district standing committee and its sub-committee had to derive from valid delegation under the municipal statute. No delegation authorising the impugned resolutions in relation to swimming in Cornwallis Square was shown. The committees therefore acted beyond their powers. Resolutions passed or confirmed without statutory authority were incapable of binding the plaintiff and could not be acted upon.

Conclusion: The impugned resolutions, except the one dealing with the right to swim, were void and inoperative and could be restrained by injunction in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the association had a legal right and locus standi to seek an injunction against the resolution stopping swimming and to challenge the continued operation of the bye-law governing bathing in public tanks.

Analysis: The earlier municipal enactment had prohibited bathing in places vesting in the Corporation, and repeal of that enactment did not revive the extinguished right because the general clauses statute prevented revival by repeal alone. The bye-law made under the earlier Act was examined through the ejusdem generis rule and held to be beyond the power conferred for regulating places of public resort and amusement; however, even though the bye-law was treated as ineffective, the association still needed a subsisting personal right to support injunctive relief. The court held that a citizen can complain only where personal rights are affected. On the facts, the plaintiff could not found an injunction solely on the supposed general right to bathe once the earlier statutory prohibition and non-revival were applied.

Conclusion: The appellant had no enforceable right to injunctive relief against the resolution stopping swimming on the footing of a revived public right to bathe, though the bye-law itself was held to be invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with relief confined to restraint against acting on the municipal resolutions that were passed without authority, while the claim based on a continuing right to bathe or swim in the tank did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A municipal resolution passed without valid statutory delegation is ultra vires and unenforceable, but repeal of a statute does not revive a right previously taken away by it; injunctive relief can be granted only where the plaintiff shows a subsisting legal right or property interest that is invaded.

---