Key Points: - The Petroleum Act, 1934 Section 31 with the 4 May 1950 notification can override Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 where overlapping and conflicting provisions exist. (!) - The notification under Section 31 of the Petroleum Act restricts the power of local authorities to regulate transportation and storage of certain petroleum products, leading to an overriding effect on local authority powers in the present case. (!) - The Petroleum Act’s scope is not intended to cover the entire area of storage and transport for all petroleum products; it governs only certain products and quantities, impacting the applicability of municipal regulation. (!) - The underground petrol tanks, though within the regular line of the street, are not considered "buildings" under Section 3(s) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and therefore do not fall within the exclusion from Section 299(1). (!) (!) - A tank is not necessarily a "building" and cannot be treated as part of a building for the purposes of Section 299(1)’s exclusion; the tanks are independent structures. (!) (!) - The court held that prior sanction of the State Government is not required given the corporation’s status and the facts presented; the petition challenging possession was dismissed. (!) (!) - The Commissioner's exercise of Section 299 powers to recover possession is upheld in the public interest for road widening, and compensation principles remain unaffected by the mode of possession (299 vs 296). (!) (!) - The petition is dismissed with costs. (!)

How to determine which statute overrides in overlapping and conflicting provisions between the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888?

What is the scope of Section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 read with the 1950 notification in relation to storage and transport of petroleum products within municipal boundaries?

What are the conditions under which the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 can or cannot exercise possession powers under Section 299 versus Section 296 in the context of underground petroleum tanks within the regular line of a street?