The court held that Schedule 66 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, was not repealed by implication by Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it was possible for an owner of a motor vehicle plying for hire to comply with both provisions. The court also held that Section 166 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, was not void under Schedule 07 (l), Government of India Act, 1935, as it was an existing 'Indian Law' and not a 'Provincial Law'.

NARASIMHAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is against the judgment of Sri Priyanath Sarkar, Magistrate, 1st class, Berhampur, convicting the petitioner under Schedule 07, Madras Local boards Act, 1920, for contravention of Schedule 66 of that Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The learned Magistrate also passed an order under Schedule 12 of that act directing the petitioner to deposit the full licence fee of Rs. 285 plus cost to the District Board of Ganjam.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of two motor buses Nos. O. B. C. 107 and O. B. C. 115 which were plying for hire between Cuttack and Berhampur in January- march 1914. He had obtained a permit from the Regional Transport Authority for plying the vehicles on the road from Cuttack to Berhampur during the said period but he did not obtain any licence from the Ganjam District Board as required by Schedule 66 (l) (a), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act ). The President of the District Board, therefore, sanctioned his prosecution for contravention of the said section which was punishable Under Section 207 of that Act.

( 3 ) THE prosecution examined only one witness, namely, Parsuram Behera (p. w. l), a clerk of the office of the Ganjam District Board, at Chhatrapur who was in charge of issuing of licences to motor vehicles. His evidence was that buses nos. o b. 0. 107 and O. R. C. 115' were plying from Berhampur to Cuttack on hire on the District Board road during the quarter from January to March 1914 that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicles and that he did not obtain a licence from the District Board for plying the said vehicles on hire for the quarter in question. During the examination of the petitioner under Schedule 42, Criminal P. C. , he frankly admitted that he plied his buses for hire for the period in question without obtaining a licence from the District Board, Ganjam.

( 4 ) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) was passed by the Central Legislature sometime in 1939 and it contains exhaustive provisions relating to the control of motor vehicles. Chapter IV of the Act deals specifically with the control of those motor vehicles which carry passengers or goods for hire or reward. Section 42 prohibits the owner of a transport vehicle from using it except in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted by the appropriate transport authority. It is not denied that the petitioner had obtained and permit under that section from the competent authority for the period in question. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the aforesaid central Act overrides the provisions of Schedule 66 (1) of the Madras Act and that a person who has obtained a permit under Schedule 2 of the Central Act need not obtain a licence from the District Board under Schedule 66 (l) of the madras Act.

( 5 ) MATERIAL extracts from the two sections are quoted below. Section 42 (1) of the Central Act - "no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or Provincial Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. " section 166 (1) of the Madras Act-"no person shall use : (a) any motor vehicle for hire, or (b) any motor lorry, on any public road in a district, except on a licence obtained from the President of the District board. "

( 6 ) THE Madras Act with its several subsequent amendments continued to remain as the law in force in Ganjam District in the year 1944, In 1931 the madras Legislature passed another Act known as the Madras Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1931, abolishing the levy of tolls in the Presidency of Madras and also the levy of taxes on motor vehicles by local bodies and providing for taxation of motor vehicles by the Provin