Municipal supervisory power over delegated building permissions extends to revision and challenge by a person injuriously affected.

Where a municipal statute permits delegation of powers to a committee but preserves supervisory control, an order of the delegated body remains subject to appellate or revisional interference if the Act and rules so allow. The text further states that the phrase "person affected" may include a neighbour whose interests are injuriously affected by a building permission, enabling such a challenge to be entertained. On that construction, the Municipality could revise or cancel the permission within the statutory framework, and the neighbour's challenge was treated as competent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Municipality had appellate and revisional power under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 and the Municipal Rules to interfere with an order made by its Public Works Committee under Section 96. (ii) Whether a neighbour or other person injuriously affected by the order could competently seek revocation or appeal, and whether the Municipality's cancellation of the permission was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Municipality had appellate and revisional power under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 and the Municipal Rules to interfere with an order made by its Public Works Committee under Section 96.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted delegation of municipal powers to committees, while preserving supervisory control, appeal and revision. The provisions governing municipal control over delegates were read together with the special provisions relating to building permissions, so that an order made by the Public Works Committee did not become final merely because it was made by a delegated body. The Municipality could therefore exercise revisional or appellate authority, and the earlier permission could be modified or cancelled if the statute and rules were complied with.

Conclusion: The Municipality had power to revise or appeal against the order of the Public Works Committee.

Issue (ii): Whether a neighbour or other person injuriously affected by the order could competently seek revocation or appeal, and whether the Municipality's cancellation of the permission was valid.

Analysis: The rules were construed broadly so that the expression relating to the "party affected" covered a person whose interests were injuriously affected by the permission, even if the order was not communicated to him in the ordinary way. The Municipality could entertain such an appeal, or in any event act in revision on its own motion. On the facts, the revocation was made within the statutory and rule-based framework and did not transgress the limits of municipal discretion under the Act.

Conclusion: The neighbour's challenge was competent and the cancellation of the permission was valid.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the Municipality's authority to interfere with the Committee's permission and sustained the revocation of the building leave.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute permits delegation of municipal powers but also provides for appellate or revisional control over delegates, an order made by the delegated authority remains subject to statutory supervision, and the expression "person affected" may include a neighbour injuriously impacted by the order.

---