Asa Ram v. The District Board, Muzaffarnagar

(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 respondent and cannot affect her rights if they are otherwise enforceable. ###### On the whole we are of the opm1on that the judgment of the High Court is sound and that this, appeal should be dismissed with costs. _Appeal dismissed._ _Shri Kishori Lal_ v. _M_ _st. Challibai_ _Kapur]._ _December 3•._ 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 ###### 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 Comv. _ 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 restriction 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 Order dated ###### July 13, 1955, of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 17/18 _<1f_ 1955 ###### upholding that of the Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar, dated :February 14, 1955, in Cr. Case No. 132 of 1955. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 _Rameshwar Nath_ and _S. N. Andley,_ for ~he appellant. _Asa Ram_ # O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,and P. o. . v: _Aggarwal,_ for the respondent. _ThMe_ _**uza;,arna**_ D•~:"' _[8]_ _**0**_ _;"a'_ ' _[4]_ _•_ . 1958. December 3. The Judgment of ~he Court _**uza;,arna0**_ ' ~as delivered by ###### WANCHOO, J.-This appeal on a certificat~ granted Wanehoo J .. by the Allahabad High Court raises a. question relating to the interpretation of certain provisi9ns of the U. P. District Boards Act, (U. P. X of 1922) 1 and the ##### U. P. Town Areas Act (U. P. No. II of 1914). It is necessary to state the facts on which the question has arisen. Asa Ram appellant runs certain ma.chines with the aid of power in premises which a.re 'in a. locality which is admittedly within the Jalalabad 1town area since the year 1953-54. He did not tll.ke out a. licence for running these ma.chines for 1953-54, as required by bye-law (7) of the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws, framed by the District Board of lduzaffarnagar, under s. 174(1) (k) read with s. 106 of, the District Boards Act. Consequently, he was prosecuted for contravening the bye-laws in question. IJe admitted that he was running these machines with the aid ###### of power; but his contention was that as the premises where the machines were running were in the town area of Jalalabad, the bye-laws framed by the Distric~ Board did not apply to him and it was not necessary for him ###### to take out a licence, and his prosecution at the instance of the District Board for contravenin~ the byelaws was bad. The decision of this point depended upon the construction of s. 93(3) of the Distriqt Boar~l:I Act and s. 26 of the Town Areas Act. The trial Magistrate was of the opinion, o.p a con###### struction of the sections above-named, that the bye - laws framed by the District Board were not applic able to premises within the Jalalabad town a.'rea., and, therefore, Asa Ram need not have taken out a. licence. He eonsequently acquitted Asa Ram. There was a revision application by the District Board, which was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicia.l), Muzaffarnagar, who agreed with the view of the 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. _z958_ Magistrate. The District Board then went up in revision to the High Court of Allahabad. The revision _Asa Ram_ was heard by a learned Single Judge, who framed v. three questions which arose for determination, namely, _**The**_ _**District Board.**_ . f . . _Muzaffarnagar_ (I) Is runnmg - a flour mill, etc., an offensive trade? _Wancl•oo_ _J._ (2) Does the word 'regulation' used in s. 26(a) U. P. Town Areas Act include the power of issuing a licence ? and (3) Does s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act amount to a divestment of authority of the District Board in favour of the Town Area Committee ? On the first question, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the machines run by Asa Ram would come within the provisions of s. 26(a) of the Town ###### Areas Act, though he also took the view that it was not necessary for him to decide the point. On the ###### second question, he held that 'regulation' did not include the power of granting a licence, though this ###### was against a Division Bench authority of that High Court reported as Municipal Board, Hathras v. Behrey Narain Dutt ( [1] ). He relied on a decision of this Court in Mohamad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee, _J_ _alalabad_ (') also in this connection. On the third ques###### tion he was of the view that s. 93(3) barred the Dis trict Board from exercising any authority in a town area which is vested in the body mentioned in it. He ###### was further of the view that the amendment of the Town Areas Act in 1934 by which the word 'Pancha###### yat' occurring in the Town Areas Act was substituted throughout by the word 'Committee' made no difference even though s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act was not simultaneously amended by substituting the words 'Town Area Committee' for the words 'Town Panchayat' therein in conformity with the change made in the Town Areas Act. But in view of his ###### decision on the second question, viz., that 'regulation' did not include the power of granting a licence, he held that bye-laws framed by the District Board for taking out licences applied to premises within the town areas. He, therefore, set aside the acquittal and (1) A.I.R. 1948 All. 1. (2) [1952J S.C.R. 572. #### _r_ (1} S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719 ordered a. retrial. He also gave leave to appeal to this _r95B_ Court. - _A_ _R_ The three points formulated by the High Court _sav._ _am_ arise for decision before us also. The learned Solicitor _The District Boaul,__ General appearing for the District Board does qot chal- _Muzaffamagar_ lenge the correctness of the decision on the first point, namely, whether the running of the machines which the _Wanchoo_ _J._ appellant is running would come within the relevant ##### words of s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act. It is, enough in t)iis connection to set out the two provision~ in the two Acts to see that the decision is correct. Section 174 (l){k) of the District Boards Act, under wh~ch the bye-laws were framed is in these t,:erms " regulating slaughter houses and offensive, dangerous or obnoxious trades, callings, or pfactices and prescribing fees to defray the expenditure incurred by a board for this purpose." Section 26(a) of the Town Areas Act is in these ###### terms " The Committee may by general or speci~l order ###### in writing provide and if so ad vised by the district magistrate shall provide for a.11 or any of the following matters within the town area, namely :(a) the regulation of offensive callings or trades; ## .......................................................... ., .. " ##### It is obvious therefore thats. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act is co-extensive with s. 174(1) (k) of the District Boards Act, so far as regulation of offensive traides or callings is concerned. As the learned Solicitor General does not contest the finding of the High Court th11t the trades in question carried on by Asa Ram with his machines with the aid of power are offensive trades, ###### it follows that the Town Area Committee has power to regulate these trades as well as the District Board. So far as the second point is concerned, the le1i.rned ###### Solicitor General concedes that 'regulation' would include the power of issuing a licence-and - very rightly so. No case has been brought to our notice in which this Court held that power of 'regulation'. does ###### not include the power of issuing a licence and that issue of a licence amounts to prohibition and is not a. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. #### r95B restriction on carrying on a trade or business. It is ###### Asa Ram enough to point out that the District Boards Act v. under which these bye-laws have been framed does not _Th• Disfricl Board,_ specifically provide anywhere for granting of licences. _Muzaffarn•c••_ Section 174(1) (k) itself speaks only of regulating offen ###### sive trades, etc., and has not given in so many words ##### Wan•hoo J. power to issue licences. It is true that s. 106 provides ###### that the board may <Jharge a fee to be fixed by bye.Jaw for any licence, sanction or permission which it is entitled. or required to grant by or under the Act ; but tha.t section merely provides for levying of fee where a licence is necessary under other provisions of the Act and is not in itself an authority for issue of licences. Therefore, when the Board framed a. bye.Jaw relating to issue of licences it di<l so under its power of regulation. The High Court with respect seems to have mis###### understood Mohamad Yasin's case { [1] ). That case turn. ed on the question whether the Town Areas Committee could impose a. fee and did not deal with the question #### whether it could issue a licence. It was in that con###### nection that the following sentence which the High ###### Court has picked out, appeared in that judgment " We ha. ve not been referred to any notification whereby s. 294 of the U. P. Municipalities Act was extended to the respondent committee." ###### Section 294 of the Municipalities Act is in the same terms as s. 106 of the District Boards Act and deals with the power of levying fees. The High Court seems ###### to have lost sight of the distinction between granting 'licences which depends on the power of regulation and ###### levying of licence-fees, which can only be levied if there is specific provision to that effect in the law. _Mohamad Yasin's case_ (1) decided that as there was no provision authorising a. Town Area Committee to levy ###### licence.fee it could not do so. That, however, did not mean that 'regulation' did not include the power of issuing licences, though in the absence of a. provision for charging licence-fees, licences must be issued with###### out charge, if bye-la. ws require the issue of a. licence in order to regulate trades or callings which a. Town ###### Area. Committee can regulate under s. 26(a.) of the (1) [1952] S.C.R. _572._ ###### (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 721 Town Are&s Act. The view of the learned Judge, _z95B_ therefore, th&t the Town Are& Committee could not _Asa_ _Ram_ issue a. licence when framing rules regulating offensive v. trades or callings is not correct. The Town All"e& _The_ _District Board,_ Committee would thus have the power to frame h.fe- _Muzaffar"agar_ ###### la.we requiring taking out of licences in ca.se it exercises its power of regulation under s. 26{a.) of the Tdwn _Wanchoo_ _J._ Areas Act .in the ea.me way as a. District Board has the power of fra.mfog bye-la.we under s. l 74{~)(k) ###### requiring those carrying on certain trades to ta.ke out licences. This brings us to the third question, namely, what happens when two statutory bodies have con~urrent power in the same field ? The power of the District Board to frame hyela.ws under s. 174(l)(k) is confined to rural area as defined in s. 3(10). We understand that this section has been a.mended recently in 1958 a.nd now town areas are to be excluded from the ambit of 'rural area.'; but at the relevant time it ra.n as follows: " 'Rural area' means the area of a district excluding every municipality as defined in the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 and every cantonment as defined in the Cantonment Act, 1910." ' Therefore, at the relevant time, the District Board would have the power to frame bye-laws even for ~own ###### areas. In order, however, to resolve a.ny conflict, which may a.rise, s. 93 (3) was included in the District ##### Boards Act. It is in these terms : . " Nothing in this Act shall entitle a boa.rd to exercise within the limits of any municipality, notified a.rea, cantonment or town area., a.ny authority which is vested in the municipal boa.rd, notified area com mittee, cantonment committee, district magistrate, or town panchayat, as the case may be." There are certain exceptions to this provision, but we 1 are not concerned with them in the present case. The 1 are not concerned with them in the present case. The argument of the learned Solicitor General in thiis be###### half is that the District Board will be divested pf its power to frame bye.laws for regulating offensive ###### trades and callings in town a.re&s, if the same author- ity is vested in the town pa.ncha.yat. He goes oµ that 91 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _z958_ now there are no Town Panchayats having authority in town areas, for the words "Town Panchayat" ap· _Asa_ _Ram_ pearing in the Town Areas Act have everywhere been ###### The Dist;;~, Board substituted by the words "Town Area Committee". ##### Muzaffarnagar 'It is submitted that a corresponding amendment was not made in s. 93 (3) and, therefore, though the Dis_wanchoo_ _J._ trict Board would have no power upto 1934 tO' frame bye-laws for town areas relating to regulation of offensive trades or callings, which were covered by s. 26 (a) of the Town Areas Act, it would have that power after the amendment of 1934. We must say that this is a very technical argument. The Town Areas Act was passed in 1914 and in the Act as it was originally passed the authority conferred ###### by s. 26(a) was vested in the Town Panchayat. In 1920 the· U. P. Village Panchayat Act was passed creating panchayats for any village or groups of villa###### ges. It seems that it was then thought fit. to change the name in the Town Areas Act to Town Area Committee to avoid confusion with the Panchayats under the Village Panchayat Act. But this in our opinion was only a formal change, for the word 'committee' in English is after all a translation more or less of the word 'panchayat' in Hindi. Therefore, when the word 'committee' was substituted in place of 'panchayat' in the Town Areas Act ~here was really no change of substance and the restriction on the power of the District Board under s. 93 (3) of the District Boards Act to deal with matters entrusted to the town areas continu###### ed in full force. In this connection, our attention was drawn to _Shrimati Hira Devi_ v. _District Board, Shah-_ ###### jahanpur (' ). In that case, s. 71 of the U. P. District Boards Act was amended but no corresponding amend###### ment was made in s. 90. In that connection the following observations were made at p. 1131 : ##### " It was unfortunate that when the Llgislature ###### came to amend the old section 71 of the Act it forgot to amend s. 90 in conformity with the amend1™lnt of s. 71. But this lacuna cannot be supplied by any such liberal construction as the High Court sought to ###### put upon the expression 'orders of any authority (1) [195z] S.C.R. u22. ; (1) S.C.R. SUPHEME COURT B.EPORTS 723 whose sanction is necessary'. No doubt it is the duty _I95_ _[8 ]_ ###### of the court to try to harmonise the various provisions Asa Ram of an Act passed by the Legislature. But it is cer- v. tainly not the duty of the Court to stretch the words _1'hc_ _v;,1,ict_ _Board,_ used by the Legislature to fill in gaps or omissions,in _Muzaffarnagar_ tho provisions of an Act." ###### That case, however, related to entirely different Wanchoo f. circumstances. Here we are dealing with two statuyes giving power to two statutory bodies, and if there . is conflict in view of the technical submission made by the learned Solicitor General and s. 93 (3) cannot come to the aid of the Town Area Committee, we have still to see which Act will prevail in the circumstanqes. The U. P. District Boards Act deals with a larger area in which the area constituting the town area is also included. The Town Areas Act on the other hand deals with a smaller area and on principle when there is a body dealing with a larger area and from th.at area is carved out a smaller area which is entrusted to another body, the law giving power to the body governing the smaller area should prevail over the law giving power to the body governing the larger area. #### If the substitution of the v.-ord 'committee' for,the ###### word 'panchayat' is merely .a translation, as observ ed earlier, it makes no difference to the application of s. 93 (3) even after 1934. But if it is not treated a.s a mere translation and it is said that a new body was vested with powers under the Town Areas Act by,the amendment of 1934, then it means that a smaller area was carved out from a larger area in 1934 and a hew statutory body was created to govern it with cer~ain powers; in those circumstances the powers given to the new statutory body in the smaller area carved, out from the larger area will prevail. Reference in this connection may be made to two English cases, which lay down the principle how, the conflict between the two statutes in similar circum###### stances should be resolved. In King v. The Justices of Middlesex ( [1] ), it was held: ###### "Where two Acts of Parliament, which p4ssed during the same session and were ·to,?Orne . into (r) (1831) 2 B. & AD. 818; (1831) 109 E.R. 1347, 1348. ###### 72' SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1959] Supp. _1958_ operation the ea.me da.y, a.re repugnant to ea.ch other, ###### that which last received the Roya.I assent must prevail _As•_ v~""' a.nd be considered pro ta.nto a repeal of the other." _He_ _Dist.ic1 Board,_ Again in _Daw, Clerk of the Commissioner_ _of_ _Sewers_ _of_ _Muzaffa.nag••_ _the City of London_ v. _The Metropolitan Board of Worka_ ###### ( [1 ] ), it wa.s held- W••,hoo J. "Where two statutes give authority to two public bodies to exercis!l powers which cannot consistently _with the object of the Legislature co-exist, the earlier must necessarily be repealed by the later statute." ###### In that case the conflict \11'.&S between s. 145 of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848 a.nd s. 141 of the Metro polis Local Ma.na.gement Act, 1855, a.nd the later wa.s held to prevail. The principle of these cases will ###### apply to the present circumstances, and if the words " town area. committee " are not held to be a transla tion of the words " town panchayat ", the result is ###### that a Town Area Committee being vested with power under s. 26 (a) to regulate offensive trades or callings, the power of the Town Area. Committee must prevail over the power of the' District Board under s. 174(l)(k) of the District Boards Act. We, therefore, allow the a.ppea.l, set aside the order of the High Court a.nd order the acquittal of Asa Ram a.ppella.nt. _Appeal allowed._ NARAIN AND TWO OTHERS ###### _v._ THE STATE OF PUNJAB ###### (GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) _Criminal Trial-Material witness,_ _who_ _is-Failure to_ _examine_ _-Effect_ _of-If amounts_ _to_ _rejection_ _of evidence-Indian Evidence_ _Act, r87z_ (I _of r87z),_ s. _r67._ Several persons attacked and seriously injured one M. After assaulting him the assailants were carrying him away when M's brother R came to rescue him and in self defence shot dead one of the assailants and carried M away. For the assault on M eight persons, including the appellants, were tried for offences under (1) (1862) C.P. u C.B.N.S. 16x; (1862) 133 R.R. 311.