By a written agreement dated the 1st March, 1943, the parties to this appeal concurred in stating a special case for the opinion of the High Court of Bombay. The question of law for the opinion of the Court was: “Whether the Crown is bound by sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act.” The High Court (Sir John Beaumont, C.J. and Rajadhyaksha, J.)1 declared that the Crown was bound by these sections, and, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, made an order as to costs in the respondents’ favour. The present appeal is against this decision.

The City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, has twenty-one chapters and 528 sections and covers, as might be expected, a wide field. Chapter X deals with water-supply. Section 265, which is in this chapter, is as follows:

“The Commissioner shall have the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions for carrying, renewing and repairing water-mains, pipes and ducts within or without the city, as he has and is subject to under the provisions hereinbefore contained for carrying, renewing and repairing drains within the city.”

The terms of this section thus necessitate a reference to Chapter IX, which has for its subject “Drains and Drainage-works,” and contains section 222(1), which says:

“The Commissioner may carry any municipal drain through, across or under any street, or any place laid out as or intended to be a street, or under any cellar or vault which may be under any street, and, after giving reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier, into, through or under any land whatsoever within the city, or, for the purpose of outfall or distribution of sewage, without the city.”

It appears from the special case, and from the correspondence annexed thereto that the Corporation wished to lay a water-main in a road known as Antop Hill Road, for the convenience of residents in the district known as Antop Hill. The case states that “the land in the locality of Antop Hill is for the most part private land belonging to the Government of Bombay, and the road serving the locality, known as Antop Hill Road, is also a private road belonging to the Government and in charge of the Public Works Department.” The meaning of the expression “private land belonging to the Government” is obscure, but the correspondence suggests that the land forms a residential district in which Government employees (among others) are housed, and counsel were agreed that for the purposes of this appeal it might be assumed that it had been acquired by the Crown from private owners after the passing of the Municipal Act.

In these circumstances the Corporation’s hydraulic engineer sought to obtain permission from the Provincial Government to lay the required water-main along the Antop Hill Road. The Government was willing to consent, but only subject to four conditions, two of which the corporation regard d as objectionable. The two conditions to which objection was made were (1) that the Corporation should, on twelve months’ notice, remove the water-main and restore the land to its original condition, (2) that the Corporation should pay in advance a rental of one rupee per annum. Eventually the Commissioner (the second respondent to this appeal), in purported exercise of his powers under sections 265 and 222(1), gave notice of his intention to carry out the proposed work. There followed the agreement under which the question in issue was submitted to the High Court.

The High Court held, following previous decisions of its own, that the principle to be applied for the decision of the question whether or not the Crown is bound by a statute is no different in the case of Indian legislation from that which has long been applied in England. The parties concurred in accepting this view, and their Lordships regard it as correct.

The general principle to be applied in considering whether or not the Crown is bound by general words in a statute is not in doubt. The maxim of the law in early