9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chairman of the Municipal Committee of Howrah who is the complainant and the respondent is a company with its premises at No. 1 Swarnamoyee Road, where it was carrying on the manufacture of bobbins, card pine, shuttles etc. They were also storing their wood and timber in those premises. The charge against the respondent was that it was using the premises with the municipality of Howrah without a license as required under section 386 of the Act and was therefore guilty under section 488 of the Act. The defence of the respondent was that the premises had been licensed as a warehouse under the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 (Act 18 of 1950) and consequently because of section 38 of that Act, section 386 of the Act stood repealed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is order the appellant took a revision to the High Court. The High Court held that where the premises are licensed as a warehouse under the Fire Services Act but a portion of it is used as a workshop the Municipal Committee has no longer the power to levy any fees for granting the license in respect of the premises even though there may be a liability to take out a license i.e. while it may be necessary to take out a license under section 386(1) of the Act no fees could be charged and as the whole of the premises in case had been licensed as a warehouse under the West Bengal Fire Services Act no part of the premises would be liable for any charge of fees for granting a license. A further argument was also raised for the appellant in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act because the interpretation of the that section is that it repeals section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923 which entitles the Corporation of Calcutta to levy fees and section 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 which entitles the Commissioners of other Municipalities to levy fees in respect of any premises licensed as a warehouse; in other words the argument was that in the case of Corporation of Calcutta section 386 of the Act shall be deemed to be repealed to the extent mentioned in section 38 and in the case of other Municipalities and the Commissioners of those Municipalities section 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act. 1932 shall be deemed to be repealed to the extent that section 38 is applicable and as Howrah Municipali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtending the Act was as follows - Howrah. - No. 260M. - 18th January 1932 - In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 541 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Bengal Act III of 1923). the Government of Bengal (Ministry of Local Self-Government) are pleased to extend to the Municipality of Howrah the following provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923, subject to the modification and restrictions specified therein which are shown in antique type. As a result of this extension section 386 was extended to the Municipality of Howrah with this modification that in place of the word Corporation of Calcutta the word Commissioners' was substituted. In 1951 the Calcutta Municipal act 1951 being West Bengal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said therefore that section 38 repeals section 386 of the Act III of 1923 as it applies to the Howrah Municipality. In a somewhat similar case a similar view was taken by the Privy Council. See Secretary of State for India v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society ((1931) L.R. 58 I.A. 259.). In that case certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were incorporated by reference into the Calcutta Improvement Act 1911. By an amendment of 1921 the right of appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court was provided in matters falling under the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that the right of appeal so given was not applicable to the award of a tribunal under the Calcutta Improvement Act assessing compensation in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Municipal Act and not section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and not section 386 of that as modified and applied to the Municipality of Howrah. It may look rather anomalous but that is what the effect of the modification of the language is. In our opinion therefore the contention of the appellant is well founded and section 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act does not repeal section 386 as modified and as applicable to the Municipality of Howrah. From the point of view of the respondent the result may be unfortunate but that is the interpretation of the language of the various section which are relevant in the present case. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and convict the respondent of the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
