9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Bombay Building (Control on Erection) Act, 1948 regarding extension to Ratnagiri district. 2. Validity of the notification extending the provisions of the Act to areas not specified in the schedule. 3. Application of section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act to the repeal and re-enactment of the ordinance. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the Bombay Building (Control on Erection) Act, 1948 concerning its extension to Ratnagiri district. The respondents were charged with commencing the construction of a cinema theatre without obtaining necessary permission. The lower courts acquitted them based on the argument that the Act was not validly extended to Ratnagiri, making permission unnecessary. The Supreme Court analyzed the notification issued by the Government of Bombay, which extended the Act to areas not specified in the schedule, including Ratnagiri. The Court held that the notification effectively extended the Act to Ratnagiri, making the construction without permission a violation of the law. 2. The validity of the notification extending the provisions of the Act to areas not mentioned in the schedule was a crucial issue in the judgment. The High Court had held that the notification only extended the ordinance to Ratnagiri and not the Act itself. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the language of section 15(1) of the Act and section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. The Court concluded that the notification, by deeming the ordinance as an enactment, effectively extended the Act to Ratnagiri. The Court criticized the legislative language for causing confusion but upheld the extension of the Act to the district based on statutory interpretation. 3. The application of section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act to the repeal and re-enactment of the ordinance was a significant aspect of the judgment. The Court highlighted that the deeming provision in section 15(1) of the Act elevated the ordinance to the status of an enactment. This elevation required interpreting the word "ordinance" in the notification as an enactment, thereby extending the Act's provisions to areas like Ratnagiri. The Court stressed the importance of giving full effect to statutory fictions and ensuring logical conclusions in statutory interpretation to uphold the legislative intent. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, affirming that the notification extended the Act to Ratnagiri and upheld the acquittal of the respondents based on the Attorney-General's undertaking not to proceed further in the matter.
|
