KISHOREBHAI KHAMANCHAND GOYAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 30-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
KISHOREBHAI KHAMANCHAND GOY AL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 30, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) 
B 
' 
Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948--App/icability of on coming 
into force of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961-Motor Transport Operator-
Found guilty of violations of provisions of State Act-Contending that on c 
coming into force of the Central Act, the State Act stood repealed by necessary 
implication-Held, High Court rightly opined that notwithstanding enactment 
of the Central Act, obligation to comply with the requirement of the State Act 
did not get wiped out . 
.... 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
D 
Implied repeal-lriference-Held, there is presumption against repeal 
by implication-Presumption when stands rebutted and repeal iriferred by 
necessary implication-Discussed. 
Legal Maxim-expressio unius (persone vel nei) est exclusio alterius- E 
Applicability of 
The appellant, a motor transport operator, was found guilty of 
violation of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (State Act). The 
fine imposed on him was upheld by the High Court, which held that 
notwithstanding the enactment of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 F 
(Central Act) the obligation to comply with the requirement of the State 
Act did not get wiped out. 
The transporter filed the present appeal contending that in view of 
s.37 of the Central Act, by necessary implication there was repeal of the 
G 
State Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
> 
HELD : 1.1. There is presumption against repeal by implication. 
~ 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5-S.C.R. 
A When a new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which 
it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws 
is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone vet nei) 
est exclusio alterius, i.e., the express intention of one person or thing is the 
exclusion of another. The presumption is however rebutted and a repeal 
B is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act 
are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act 
and that the two cannot stand together. The necessary considerations in 
this regard are: (1) whether there is direct conflict between the two 
provisions; (2) whether the legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive 
code in respect of the subject matter replacing the earlier law; and (3) 
C whether the two laws occupy the same field. [4-D-G; 5-A-B) 
Municipal Council, Palai through the Commissioner of Municipal 
Council, Palai v. l.J. Joseph, AIR (1963) SC 1561; Northern India Caterers 
(Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1581; 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, [1971) 1 SCC 442; Ratan 
D Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of lridia, AIR (1990) SC 104; R.S. Raghunath 
v. State of Karnataka and Anr., AIR (1992) SC 81; Pt. Rishikesh and Anr. v. 
Sa/ma Begum, (Smt.) [1995) 4 SCC 718 and Shri A.B. Krishna and Ors. ".· 
The State of Karnataka and Anr., JT (1998) 1 SC 613, relied on. 
E 
Garnett v. Bradley, (1878) 3 AC 944 (HL) and A.G. v. Moore, (1878) 
3 Ex.D 276, referred to. 
1.2. The areas of operation of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 
1961 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 are different 
with wholly different aims and objects. They operate in their respective 
F fields and there is no impediment for their existence side by side. There is 
no direct conflict between any of the provisions of the two statutes. The 
operation of the Central Act is not restricted in its area of operation by 
what is provided in the State Act and vice versa. The responsibilities and 
obligations of the management under both the Acts cannot be avoided 
altogether and it is only where on any particular aspect or stipulation, the 
G prescription is found to overlap - to that extent and in respect of any such 
matter alone the Central Act will apply to the exclusion of a .contra 
stipulation in the State Act and consequently, the State Act as ~· whole 
cannot be held to have been abrogated by the Central Act. [5-H; 6-D-E) 
.._ 
H 
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur, AIR (1968) 
K.K. GOYAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT,J.] 
3 
~ 
Pat. 200; Amamatsingh v. Pr~iding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, AIR A 
(1970) Pat. 269 and Corporation of the City of Nagpur through Shop Inspector 
v. Mis Inland Carriers, Nagpur and Anr., (1987) LLJ 270, approved. 
Re: B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.