1946 (10) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Crown is bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.
2. Interpretation of the principle that the Crown is not bound by legislation unless expressly named or by necessary implication.
3. Consideration of whether the Act operates for the public good and its implications on binding the Crown.
4. Examination of property held jure coronae versus other Crown property.
5. Impact of express references to the Crown in other parts of the Act and related legislation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Crown is bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888:
The High Court of Bombay initially declared that the Crown was bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The appeal challenged this decision, questioning the applicability of these sections to the Crown. The sections in question pertain to the powers of the Commissioner in relation to municipal drains and water-mains, and the appeal sought to determine whether these statutory provisions applied to Crown properties.

2. Interpretation of the principle that the Crown is not bound by legislation unless expressly named or by necessary implication:
The general principle, as reiterated, is that "no statute bound the Crown unless the Crown was expressly named therein." However, an exception exists where the Crown may be bound "by necessary implication." The High Court's interpretation suggested that if legislation "cannot operate with reasonable efficiency unless the Crown is bound," it implies the Crown is bound by necessary implication. However, this interpretation was not approved by the appellate court, which emphasized that such a principle should not be diluted and must be strictly construed.

3. Consideration of whether the Act operates for the public good and its implications on binding the Crown:
The respondents contended that statutes enacted "for the public good" should bind the Crown. The appellate court acknowledged that while the Act aimed to promote public welfare, this alone does not necessarily bind the Crown. Historical cases such as Gorton Local Board v. Prison Commissioners demonstrated that even beneficial statutes did not bind the Crown unless explicitly stated or necessarily implied. The court concluded that the Act's purpose, while important, did not suffice to bind the Crown without clear legislative intent.

4. Examination of property held jure coronae versus other Crown property:
The appeal considered whether the nature of the Crown's property (whether held jure coronae or acquired from private owners) affected the applicability of the statute. The court found no distinction in the binding nature of the statute based on the type of Crown property. The Scottish cases cited suggested a potential distinction, but this view was not adopted in English or Indian law. The appellate court maintained that the principle applied uniformly to all Crown properties.

5. Impact of express references to the Crown in other parts of the Act and related legislation:
The respondents argued that express references to the Crown in other parts of the Act and the Government Building Act, 1899, implied that the Crown was bound by the Municipal Act. The appellate court dismissed this argument, stating that such references might be included out of caution and do not necessarily imply binding the Crown by other sections of the Act. The court emphasized that legislative intent to bind the Crown must be explicitly clear.

Conclusion:
The appellate court concluded that the Crown is not bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The High Court's decree was set aside, and a new decree was issued declaring the Crown's exemption from these sections. The respondents were ordered to bear their costs and pay the plaintiff's costs of the special case and the appeal.