CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERS OF HOWRAH versus SHALIMAR WOOD PRODUCTS & ANOTHER.

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 26-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
1 s.d.R. 
SUPREME OOURT REPOR'l4S 
CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL COM-
MISSIONERS OF HOWRAH 
v. 
47 
SHALTMAR WOOD PRODUCTS & ANOTHER. 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DASS GUPTA a.nd 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ,) 
Municipality-BuBinesB premises within municipal limitB-
W/1ole of premisell licenaed aB warehouse under Fire Prevention 
Scheme-Power of Municipality to require a license-West Bengal 
Fire Services Act, J[Jlj0 (W. B. 18 o.f 1950) -Bengal Municipal 
Act, 1932 (Ben. 15 of 1932), s. 370-0alcutta Municipal Act, 
1923 (Ben. Ill of 192.~) s. 330 (I) (b), 488, 540, 541, 542. 
The respondent company was prosecuted for using the 
·. premises within the Municipality of Howrah without a liceme 
as required under s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923, 
as extended to 
~he Municipality of Howrah by Notification 
No. 260 M dated January 18, 1932, under ss. 540. and 541 of 
the Act. The Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, also stood repealed 
qua the municipality of Howrah under s. 542 of the Act from 
the date of such extention. The defence of the respondent 
was that the premises had been licensed as a warehouse under 
the West Bengal Fire Service Act, 1950, and consequently, 
because of s. 38 of the Fire Services Act, s. 386 of the Act stood 
repealed and the respondent was not required to take out 
another license under the said s. 386. 
The respondent was 
however convicted under s. 488 of the Act. In appeal the 
Sessions Judge reduced the sentence and fine. The appellant 
took a revision to the High Court. The High Court held 
inter-alia that s. 38 of the Fire Service Act was applicable to 
the Howrah Mtmicipality. Therefore, while it may be neces-
sary to take out a license under s. 386 ( 1) of the Act, no part 
of the premises would be liable for any charge of fees for 
granting a license. The appellant came up in appeal by 
special leave to the Supreme Court. 
HeM, that the effect of extension of s. 386 of the Calcutta 
Municipal Act, 1923, 
by notification No. 260 M dated 
January 18, 1932~· under s. 540 and s. 541 of the Act, to the 
Municipality of Howrah is that an amended Act with s. 386 
is applicable to the Municipality of Howrah and not s. 386 of 
the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. 
Although s. 38 
of the West Bengal Fire Services 
Act extends to the whole of Bengal and to the extent there set 
t, 
it re?e:il; s. 
386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act which 
19111 
March 26 
1962 
Chairman of,,,. 
Mrmi;ipnl 
Commis.siontr1 of 
Howrah 
v. 
S h•limtw Wood 
Produds 
Kapur J, 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) 
applies to the Corporation of Calcutta and s. 370 of the 
Bengal Municipal Act which applies to the other Municipalities 
of Bengal yet it does not affect the operation of s. 386 of the 
former Act as modified and extended to the Municipality of 
Howrah by the notification. The language of s. 386 has been 
modified to make it appropriate in its application to the Muni-
cipality of Howrah and for that purpose in place of the word 
'corporation' the word 'commissioners' has been substituted. 
Thus modified it is nots. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 
hut a different section. Therefore what s. 38 of the West 
Bengal Fire Services Act repeals in s. 386 of the Calcutta 
Municipal Act and not s. 386 of that as modified and applied 
to the Municipality of Howrah. 
Secretary of State for India v. Hindusthan Oo- operative 
Insurance Society, (1931) L. R. 59 I. A. 259, referred to. 
CRIMINAL Al'l'ELJ,A'l'E J URISDIC'l"ION: C1·iminal 
Appo;d No. 240of195!J. 
Appeal by speoial leave from the judgment and 
order dated July 15, 1959, of the Calcutta High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 135 of 1959. 
S. C. Maz·umdar, for the appellant. 
Sukumar Ghose, for the respondent No. I. 
1962. March 26. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Kuu.R, J .-This is an appeal against the 
judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta 
passed in revision 11.gainst the order of the Addi-
tional SeBBions Judge, Howrah, who had modified 
the order of conviction of the respondents under 
s. 488 read with s. 386(l)(b) of the Calcutta Muni-
cipal Act (Act III of 11123) as extended to the 
Municipality of Howrah, hereinafter called the 
'Act'. The u.ppellant before us is the Chairman 
of the Municipal Committee of Howrah who is 
the complainant and the respondent is a company 
with its premises at No. 
1 Swarnamoyee Road 
whel'e it was rnurying on the manufacture of bobb'. 
ins, card pine, shuttles etc, They wtire also storing 
their wood and timber in those
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.