Good faith statutory immunity fails where municipal conduct shows reckless disregard of known flood risk.
Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act protects only acts done in good faith, meaning honest action; mere negligence does not defeat the defence, but awareness of likely harm followed by reckless disregard does. On the facts, the Municipality knew the waterway had been narrowed, the slab and centering remained, and debris obstructed the nallah at the start of monsoon, yet failed to take effective preventive steps. That conduct was treated as reckless indifference rather than honest mistake, so the statutory immunity was unavailable and the decree in favour of the respondent remained undisturbed.
Issues: Whether the Municipality was protected by statutory immunity under Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act on the ground that the impugned acts were done in good faith.
Analysis: Section 167 protects only acts done or intended to be done in good faith. Good faith, in this context, imports honesty of action and is not destroyed by mere negligence, but it is negatived where the actor is aware of the risk of harm and yet proceeds with reckless disregard of the consequences. On the facts found, the Municipality knew that the waterway had been narrowed, that the slab and centering remained in place, and that debris obstructed the nallah at the onset of monsoon, yet took no effective steps to avert the likely flood. Such conduct amounted to reckless indifference rather than honest mistake.
Conclusion: The Municipality did not act in good faith and was not entitled to protection under Section 167.
Final Conclusion: The statutory defence failed, and the decree in favour of the respondent stood undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory protection for acts done in good faith is unavailable where the authority, with awareness of likely harm, acts with reckless disregard of consequences, because such conduct is legally equivalent to absence of good faith.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
