LexASA RAM versus THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFFARNAGAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 715 it might have been acquiesced in by all concerned when as in the present case, the evidence shows that the adoption did not take place. Another fact on which the appellant relied was that on October 30, 1933, Badrinarayan, his wife and his sons par.titioned their family property. That is not an act of the res- pondent and cannot affect her rights if they are other- wise enforceable. · On the whole we are of the opm1on that the judg- ment of the High Court is sound and that this , appeal should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. ASA RAM v. THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFF ARN A(jAR (S. R. DAS, c. J., BHAGW ATI, B. P. SINHA, SuBBA RAO and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) Conflict of Statutes-Two statutes conferring same p0cµier on two different bodies-Construction-'Committee' and 'Panchayat', if identical in meanning-Power to regulate, if includes power to require taking out of licence-U. P. District Boards Act (U. P. X of r922), ss. 93(3), ro6 and r74(r)(k)-U. P. Town Areas Act (U. P. II of r9r4) as amended in r934, s. 26(a). The ·appellant was running machines with the aid of power in a locality which was admittedly within the Jalalabad Town Area. He did not take out a licence for running the machines as required by the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws fra~ed by the respondent, the District Board Muzaffarnagar, .under s. 174(1)(k) read withs. 106 of the U. P. District Boards Aot, and was prosecuted by the respondent. The appellant contended that the bye-laws did not apply to the town area and it w~s not necessary for him to take out a licence. Section 174(1)(k) cof the District Boards Act and s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act both provided for the regulation of offensive trades and admittedly the trade carried on by the appellant was an offensive trade. The District Boards had the power under s. 174(1)(k) to frame bye-laws for rural areas which included town areas. Buts. 93(3) of the District Boards Act took away the power of the District Shri Kishori Lal v. M st. Challibai Kapur]. December 3•. 716 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 1958 Boards to exercise within the limits of a town area any authority which was vested in a 'Town Panchayat'. Though the words Asa Ram 'Town Panchayat' were replaced by the words "Town Area Com- v. _ mittee" in the Town Areas Act by an amendment in 1934 there Tiu District Board. was no corresponding amendment in s. 93(3) of the District Muzajfarnagar Boards Act. The respondent contended that as there were no Town Panchayats as such now, s. 93(3) did·not bar the District Board from framing bye-Jaws for town areas. Held, that the respondent had no power to frame bye-laws for the town area and, consequently, the prosecution of the appellant was bad. As the word 'committee' was merely a translation of the word 'panchayat', the substitution of the word· 'committee' for the word 'Panchayat' in the Town Areas Act did not make any substantial chan~e and consequently the restric- tion under s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act continued in full force. When there is a body dealing with a larger area and from that area is carved out a smaller area which is entrused to another body, the law giving power to the body governing the smaller area must prev'!-il over the law giving power to the body governing the larger area. If the Act of 1934 amending the Town Areas Act brought into existence a new body, the Town Area Committee, then it means that a smaller area was carved out from a larger area in 1934 and the powers given to the new statutory body would prevail. Where two statutes give authority to two bodies to exercise powers which cannot co-exist, the earlier is repealed by the later statute. On this principle also the power of the Town Area Committee, if it be deemed to be a new body coming into exi~tence in 1934, must prevail over that of the District Board. King v. Tile justices o[.Middlese>:, (1831) 169 E. R. 1347 and Daw v. The Metropolitan 'Board of Wor.h, (1862) 133 R.R. 3n, relied upon. The power to regulate a trade includes the power to frame bye-laws requiring the taking out of a licence. Mohamad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee, Jalalabild, [1952] S.C.R. 572, referred to. CBIJllINAL APPJU.LATE · JU&ISDIOTION: Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 11, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1724 of 1955, against the O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.