The extension of a central law to a Part B State repeals the corresponding state law and any subordinate legislation made under it, unless there is a saving provision.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J.: These seven appeals are connected as they relate to the same appellant and the point involved in each is identical. They are before us by virtue of special leave granted by this Court and are directed against the common judgment of the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicting the appellant of a contravention of the Indian Iron and Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943.

2. The accused, the appellant before us, was the President of the Scrap Dealers Association at Indore and he was prosecuted before the learned Additional City Magistrate, Indore City in seven sets of criminal cases filed by the state of Madhya Pradesh alleging contravention of S. 8 (4) of the Iron and Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943 by selling or causing to be sold scrap iron to different customers on different dates at a rate higher than was authorised by notification, dated September 30, 1952 issued by the Steel Controller under the said order. He was acquitted by the Additional City Magistrate but on appeals preferred by the State Government, the learned Judges set aside the acquittal and convicted him of the offences and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in each case with imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It is the correctness of this judgment of the High Court that is canvassed before us by the appellant in these appeals.

3. To appreciate the points raised by the appellant it is necessary to narrate briefly the history of the legislation on the topic of control over the price at which scrap was permitted to be sold by dealers. The Defence of India Act, 1939 enabled the Central Government to frame rules, among others, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community (vide S. 2). In pursuance thereof R. 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules empowered the Central Government "so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient for . . ..... maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community" to provide by order, inter alia, (a) for controlling the prices or rates at which articles or things of any description whatever may be sold ...... and for relaxing any such prices or rates". By virtue of this power, the Central Government promulgated the Iron and Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Scrap Order on February 25, 1943. This order to whose provisions we shall have to make some reference later would normally have lapsed on expiry of six months after the revocation the proclamation of emergency because of the provisions of S. 102(3)(a) of the Government of India Act, 1935. In order to avoid this result, the Emergency Provisions Continuance Ordinance, 1946 was promulgated on September 25, 1946 which continued several orders in relation to the control of production, distribution, etc. of essential commodities, and Indian Scrap Order among them, and this ordinance was replaced by a permanent legislation - the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act 24 of 1946) which also contained a provision for the continuance of the Control Orders in force [Vide S. 17(2)]. S. 8(4) of the Indian Scrap Order prohibited the sale of scrap in excess of the prices fixed therefor by the controller. It is not disputed that the sales in regard to which the appellant has been prosecuted were in excess of the maximum there specified.

4. Several defences were raised but of these those which now survive are only two: (1) The legal effect of the parallel provisions on the same subject, viz., Control over the sale price of scrap which were in force in the Part B State of Madhya Bharat which comprised Indore, and (2) Whether the appellant as the President of the Scrap Dealers Association which was an unincorporated body could be held liable for a sale in excess of the authorised maximum price effected by a Munim or Munims of the Association.

5. We shall now proceed to narrate in brief outline the history of the parallel provisions relative to