.....same to the vice- chairman or to any municipal officer. the machinery provided in the act must be followed in enforcing its provisions, and it is against the tenor and scheme of the act to hold that s. 537 is merely enabling in nature. nazir ahmed v. king emperor, (1936) l.r. 63 i.a. 372. referred to. sisir kumar mitter v. corporation of calcutta. (1926) i.l.r. 53 cal. 631, explained. keshabdeo kedia v. p. banerjee, sanitary inspector, howrah municipality. a.i.r. (1943) cal. 31 and state v. manilal jethalal a.i.r (1953) bom. 365,referred to. cole v. coulten,2 ellis & ellis 695, buckler v. wilson, (1896) 1 q.b.d. 83, the queen v. stewart, (1896) 1 q.b.d. 300 and giebler v. manning, (1906) 1 k.. b 709, held inapplicable. the queen v. cubitt. (1889) 22 q.b.d. 622, relied on. per hidayatullah, 1. the sanction given by the health officer was valid as the delegation of authority, to him by the order of december 20, 1949, was not taken away by subsequent orders. the order of december 20, 1949, which specially conferred the power to order prosecution to sign prosecution sheets was a special order and was unaffected by the general order of april 7, 1951. the later order put a time limit only on delegations made under that order and not on orders made before.
order1. special leave granted.2. on condition that the appellant deposits in the trial court a sum of rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) within two months from today and a further sum of rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) within two months thereafter, the winding up proceedings in company petition no. 14 of 1984 pending before the high court of andhra pradesh proceedings in suit no. 15 of 1986 in the court of the subordinate judge, medak district, sanga reddy, and suits nos. 10331, 10330 and 10332 of 1986 in the court of the additional judge, city civil court hyderabad, shall remain stayed. by consent of parties, the issue whether the amount claimed by the respondent in the winding up proceedings is in fact due to the said respondent will be tried in suit no. 10331 of 1986. the aforesaid amount of rs. 10,00,000/-(rupees ten lakhs) shall be invested by the trial court in a scheduled bank in fixed deposit for a period of three years.3. the appeal is disposed of accordingly. there is no order as to costs.