LexTHE DISTRICT BOARD, GHAZIPUR versus LAKSHMI NARAIN SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,/ I - I 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT .REPORTS 81 both altered when agricultural income is appropriated under the covenant in the deed of trust as remunera- Maharajadhiraja tion for services rendered. Sir Kameshwar In this view, the appeal fa.ils and is dismissed with Singh costs. v. Appeal dismissed. THE DISTRICT BOARD, GHAZIPUR v. LAKSHMI NARAIN SHARMA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. SUB BA RAO, K. N. WANCHOO and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Regulatio~ and Control of Trade-District Board, power of- If impliedly repealed-Sanitation, connotation of-U. P. District Boards Act, Ig22 (U. P. X of I922), ss. 9I(q) and I74-U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, I947 (U. P. XXVI of Ig47), ss. IS and III. The appellant framed bye-laws for the regulation and con- trol of flour, rice .and oil mills under which a licence had to be obtained on payment of licence fee for running a mill. The \;ye-laws were framed under s. 174 of the U. P. District Boards Act, 1922. The respondent contended that the bye-laws were ultra vires and void as the District Boards had been divested of their powers to regulate and control trade under the District Boards Act on account of s. III of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which operated in tbe same field. Held, that the bye-laws had been validly made and that the District Boards were not divested of their powers to regu- late and control trade under the District Boards Act, 1922, by the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Section 9x(q) of the District Boards Act cast a duty . on the District Boards to make provisions for regulating offensive, dangerous or obno- xious trades, callings or practices and s. 174(2)(k) specifically empowered District Boards to make bye-laws in this respect. There was no similar duty or power conferred upon Village Panchayats under the Panchayat Raj Act and consequently the question of the.later enactment prevailing over the former did u The Commissioner of Income-lax, Bihar & Orissa Shah]. October z6. i960 The District Boa1·,fl. Gha::ipur v. Laksl11ni Narain Sharma 82 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [1961] not arise. The reference to "sanitation" in s. 15(c) of the Panchayat Raj Act did not cover regulation and control of trade. Though the word" sanitation'' in its widest connotation was capable of including this, it was not used in its widest sense in s. 15(c) but only in its ordinary sense in relation to conserv- ancy, drainage and the like. Section III of the Panchayat Raj Act was in general terms, but bye-laws could be framed under it only in respect of the functions and duties imposed upon a Gram Panchayat under ss. IS and 16. Held, further, that the licence fee charged by the District Board could not be struck down on account of fees being charged from the respondent in respect of his mills under the U. P. Rice and Dal Mills Control Order, 1948, and the U. P. Pure Food Act. The licence fee charged by the District Board was !or the regu- lation of obnoxious trades and the purpose of this regulation was different from the purpose for which fee was charged from the respondent under the Essential Supplies Act and the Pure Food Act. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 372 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order da.ted January 18, 1!156, of the Alla.ha.bad High Court in Special Appeal No. 43 of 1955. G. C. Mathur, for the appellant. G. P. Singh and K. P. Gupta, for the respondent. S. P. Sinha and P. C. Agarwala, for Intervener No. l. Radheylal Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for Inter- vener No. 2. Frank Anthony and M. I. Khowaja, for Intervener No. 3. 1960. October 26. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by w anchoo ; . WAN CHOO J .-This is an appeal on a. certiticate granted by the Alla.ha.bad High Court. The respon- dent is carrying on the trade of hulling rice, milling grains and-extracting oil in village Nandganj within the area of Ga.on Sabha Ba.ra.pur. He obtained licences for the three trades under the United Provinces Rice and Dal Control Order, 1948, as also under the Uttar Pradesh Pure Foo.cl Act, 1950. Further the Ga.on Sabha. a.lso imposed a. licence fee of Rs. 6/- and a ta.:11: » ... ' -1 • ' 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 83 z960 ofRs. 8/- on each mill within its jurisdiction and the respondent had been paying that as well. In 1953 the District Boa.rd, Ghazipur, in which district the village Board, Ghazipur is situate, enforced bye-laws for the regulation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.