1. Prosecution for running machines without a license under District Board bye-laws in a town area — conflict between District Boards Act and Town Areas Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 162
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd December, 1958
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Asa Ram, Appellant
Versus
The District Board, Muzaffarnagar, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., for the Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (Mr. P. C. Aggarwal, Advocate, with him), for the Respondent.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, P.C.AGRAWAL, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
C.K.DAFTARY, P.C.AGRAWAL, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
When two statutes grant concurrent powers to bodies governing a larger and a smaller area respectively, the law governing the smaller, carved-out area prevails. Additionally, the power to "regulate" trades includes the authority to issue licenses, though not necessarily the power to levy fees without specific authorization.
Headnote:(A) U.P. District Boards Act - Sections 174(1)(k), 106, and 93(3) - U.P. Town Areas Act - Section 26(a) - Regulation of offensive trades - Power to issue licenses - Conflict between two statutory bodies - When a smaller area is carved out from a larger area and entrusted to a specific body, the law governing the smaller area prevails over the law governing the larger area - Power of regulation includes the power to issue licenses, although the power to levy fees requires specific statutory provision. (Paras 3, 4, 7)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Substitution of terms - Change of nomenclature from 'Town Panchayat' to 'Town Area Committee' viewed as a formal change or translation, not a substantive change in authority, thus maintaining the restriction on the larger body's power. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An individual operated power-driven machines in a town area without obtaining a license required by the bye-laws of a district board. The individual contended that since the premises were within a town area, the district board's bye-laws were inapplicable and the prosecution for contravening said bye-laws was invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the operation of such machines constitutes an offensive trade. It held that the power to "regulate" such trades includes the power to require licenses. Furthermore, it determined that the authority of the town area committee prevails over that of the district board within the town area.
Issues: (1) Whether the operation of power-driven machines constitutes an offensive trade; (2) Whether the power of "regulation" includes the power to issue licenses; and (3) Whether the district board is divested of authority in favor of the town area committee within a town area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the power of regulation inherently includes the power to issue licenses to control offensive trades. Regarding the conflict of jurisdiction, it established that where a smaller area is carved out from a larger area and entrusted to a specific statutory body, the legislation governing the smaller area prevails. The substitution of "Committee" for "Panchayat" was a formal change that did not restore the district board's authority.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether District Board bye-laws apply to town areas and whether the power of regulation includes the power to issue licenses. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
3. Power of regulation includes issuing licenses, distinct from levying fees; specific area statutes prevail over general area statutes in cases of conflict. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
4. Where two statutes grant concurrent power to bodies governing a larger and smaller area, the statute governing the smaller area prevails. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — acquittal of appellant ordered. (Para 8 )
6. Does the power to regulate a trade include the power to require a license?
Yes, the power of regulation includes the power to issue licenses. However, the power to levy a fee for such a license is distinct and requires a specific statutory provision; without such provision, licenses must be issued without charge. (Para 4 )
7. How is a conflict resolved between a statute governing a large area and one governing a smaller area carved from it?
When a smaller area is carved out from a larger area and entrusted to a separate statutory body, the law giving power to the body governing the smaller area prevails over the law governing the larger area. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Does a formal change in the name of a statutory body remove statutory restrictions based on the previous name?
No, if the change is merely formal or a translation without a change in substance, the statutory restrictions on authority continue to apply in full force. (Para 6 )
Judgement
K. N. WANCHOO, J. : This appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court raises a question relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the U. P. District Boards Act, (U. P. X of 1922) and the U. P. Town Areas Act, (U.P. II of 1914). It is necessary to state the facts on which the question has arisen. Asa Ram appellant runs certain machines with the aid of power in premises which are in a locality which is admittedly within the Jalalabad town area since the year 1953-54. He did not take out a licence for running these machines for 1953-54, as required by bye-law (7) of the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws, framed by the District Board of Muzaffarnagar, under S. 174 (1) (k) read with S. 106 of the District Boards Act. Consequently, he was prosecuted for contravening the byelaws in question. He 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 byelaws framed by the District 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 contravening the bye-laws was bad. The decision of this point depended upon the construction of S. 93 (3) of the District Boards Act and S. 26 of the Town Areas Act.
2. The trial Magistrate was of the opinion, on a construction of the sections abovenamed, that the bye-laws framed by the District Board were not applicable to premises within the Jalalabad town area, and therefore, Asa Ram need not have taken out a licence. He consequently acquitted Asa Ram. There was a revision application by the District Board, which was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Muzaffarnagar, who agreed with the view of the Magistrate. The District Board then went up in revision to the High Court of Allahabad. The revision was heard by a learned Single Judge, who framed three questions which arose for determination, namely,
(1) Is running of a flour mill, etc., an offensive trade ?
(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. Bohrey Narain Dutt , A I R 1948 All 1. He relied on a decision of this Court in Mohammad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee Jalalabad 1952 S C R 572 : also in this connection. On the third question he was of the view that S. 93(3) barred the District 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 Panchayat 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 ordered a retrial. He also gave leave to appeal to this Court.
3. The three points formulated by the High Court arise for decision before us also. The learn
