# ASA RAM v. THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFF ARN A(jAR - **Citation:** [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 715 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1956-05-11 - **Bench:** S. R. Das, Bhagw Ati, B. P. Sinha, SuBBA RAO, K. N. W Anchoo - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/asa-ram-v-the-district-board-muzaff-arn-a-jar-1602 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote Conflict of Statutes-Two statutes conferring same p0cμier on two different bodies-Construction-'Committee' and 'Panchayat', if identical in meanning-Power to regulate, if includes power to require taking out of licence-U. P. District Boards Act (U. P. X of r922), ss. 93(3), ro6 and r74(r)(k)-U. P. Town Areas Act (U. P. II of r9r4) as amended in r934, s. 26(a). The ·appellant was running machines with the aid of power in a locality which was admittedly within the Jalalabad Town Area. He did not take out a licence for running the machines as required by the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws fra~ed by the respondent, the District Board Muzaffarnagar, .under s. 174(1)(k) read withs. 106 of the U. P. District Boards Aot, and was prosecuted by the respondent. The appellant contended that the bye-laws did not apply to the town area and it w~s not necessary for him to take out a licence. Section 174(1)(k) cof the District Boards Act and s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act both provided for the regulation of offensive trades and admittedly the trade carried on by the appellant was an offensive trade. The District Boards had the power under s. 174(1)(k) to frame bye-laws for rural areas which included town areas. Buts. 93(3) of the District Boards Act took away the power of the District Shri Kishori Lal v. M st. Challibai Kapur]. December 3•. 716 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 1958 Boards to exercise within the limits of a town area any authority which was vested in a 'Town Panchayat'. Though the words Asa Ram 'Town Panchayat' were replaced by the words "Town Area Comv. _ mittee" in the Town Areas Act by an amendment in 1934 there Tiu District Board. was no corresponding amendment in s. 93(3) of the District Muzajfarnagar Boards Act. The respondent contended that as there were no Town Panchayats as such now, s. 93(3) did·not bar the District Board from framing bye-Jaws for town areas. Held, that the respondent had no power to frame bye-laws for the town area and, consequently, the prosecution of the appellant was bad. As the word 'committee' was merely a translation of the word 'panchayat', the substitution of the word· 'committee' for the word 'Panchayat' in the Town Areas Act did not make any substantial chan~e and consequently the restriction under s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act continued in full force. When there is a body dealing with a larger area and from that area is carved out a smaller area which is entrused to another body, the law giving power to the body governing the smaller area must prev'!-il over the law giving power to the body governing the larger area. If the Act of 1934 amending the Town Areas Act brought into existence a new body, the Town Area Committee, then it means that a smaller area was carved out from a larger area in 1934 and the powers given to the new statutory body would prevail. Where two statutes give authority to two bodies to exercise powers which cannot co-exist, the earlier is repealed by the later statute. On this principle also the power of the Town Area Committee, if it be deemed to be a new body coming into exi~tence in 1934, must prevail over that of the District Board. King v. Tile justices o[.Middlese>:, (1831) 169 E. R. 1347 and Daw v. The Metropolitan 'Board of Wor.h, (1862) 133 R.R. 3n, relied upon. The power to regulate a trade includes the power to frame bye-laws requiring the taking out of a licence. Mohamad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee, Jalalabild, [1952] S.C.R. 572, referred to. CBIJllINAL APPJU.LATE · JU&ISDIOTION: Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 11, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1724 of 1955, against the Order dated July 13, 1955, of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 17/18 <1f 1955 upholding that of the Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar, dated :February 14, 1955, in Cr. Case No. 132 of 1955. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 Rameshwar Nath and S. N. ## Text (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 715 it might have been acquiesced in by all concerned when as in the present case, the evidence shows that the adoption did not take place. Another fact on which the appellant relied was that on October 30, 1933, Badrinarayan, his wife and his sons par.titioned their family property. That is not an act of the respondent and cannot affect her rights if they are otherwise enforceable. · On the whole we are of the opm1on that the judgment of the High Court is sound and that this , appeal should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. ASA RAM v. THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFF ARN A(jAR (S. R. DAS, c. J., BHAGW ATI, B. P. SINHA, SuBBA RAO and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) Conflict of Statutes-Two statutes conferring same p0cμier on two different bodies-Construction-'Committee' and 'Panchayat', if identical in meanning-Power to regulate, if includes power to require taking out of licence-U. P. District Boards Act (U. P. X of r922), ss. 93(3), ro6 and r74(r)(k)-U. P. Town Areas Act (U. P. II of r9r4) as amended in r934, s. 26(a). The ·appellant was running machines with the aid of power in a locality which was admittedly within the Jalalabad Town Area. He did not take out a licence for running the machines as required by the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws fra~ed by the respondent, the District Board Muzaffarnagar, .under s. 174(1)(k) read withs. 106 of the U. P. District Boards Aot, and was prosecuted by the respondent. The appellant contended that the bye-laws did not apply to the town area and it w~s not necessary for him to take out a licence. Section 174(1)(k) cof the District Boards Act and s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act both provided for the regulation of offensive trades and admittedly the trade carried on by the appellant was an offensive trade. The District Boards had the power under s. 174(1)(k) to frame bye-laws for rural areas which included town areas. Buts. 93(3) of the District Boards Act took away the power of the District Shri Kishori Lal v. M st. Challibai Kapur]. December 3•. 716 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 1958 Boards to exercise within the limits of a town area any authority which was vested in a 'Town Panchayat'. Though the words Asa Ram 'Town Panchayat' were replaced by the words "Town Area Comv. _ mittee" in the Town Areas Act by an amendment in 1934 there Tiu District Board. was no corresponding amendment in s. 93(3) of the District Muzajfarnagar Boards Act. The respondent contended that as there were no Town Panchayats as such now, s. 93(3) did·not bar the District Board from framing bye-Jaws for town areas. Held, that the respondent had no power to frame bye-laws for the town area and, consequently, the prosecution of the appellant was bad. As the word 'committee' was merely a translation of the word 'panchayat', the substitution of the word· 'committee' for the word 'Panchayat' in the Town Areas Act did not make any substantial chan~e and consequently the restriction under s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act continued in full force. When there is a body dealing with a larger area and from that area is carved out a smaller area which is entrused to another body, the law giving power to the body governing the smaller area must prev'!-il over the law giving power to the body governing the larger area. If the Act of 1934 amending the Town Areas Act brought into existence a new body, the Town Area Committee, then it means that a smaller area was carved out from a larger area in 1934 and the powers given to the new statutory body would prevail. Where two statutes give authority to two bodies to exercise powers which cannot co-exist, the earlier is repealed by the later statute. On this principle also the power of the Town Area Committee, if it be deemed to be a new body coming into exi~tence in 1934, must prevail over that of the District Board. King v. Tile justices o[.Middlese>:, (1831) 169 E. R. 1347 and Daw v. The Metropolitan 'Board of Wor.h, (1862) 133 R.R. 3n, relied upon. The power to regulate a trade includes the power to frame bye-laws requiring the taking out of a licence. Mohamad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee, Jalalabild, [1952] S.C.R. 572, referred to. CBIJllINAL APPJU.LATE · JU&ISDIOTION: Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 11, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1724 of 1955, against the Order dated July 13, 1955, of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 17/18 <1f 1955 upholding that of the Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar, dated :February 14, 1955, in Cr. Case No. 132 of 1955. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, for ~he appellant. Asa Ram O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India ,and P. o. . v: Aggarwal, for the respondent. ThMe D•~:"' 8;"a'4• . 1958. December 3. The Judgment of ~he Court uza;,arna0 ' ~as delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This appeal on a certificat~ granted Wanehoo J .. by the Allahabad High Court raises a. question relating to the interpretation of certain provisi9ns of the U. P. District Boards Act, (U. P. X of 1922)1 and the U. P. Town Areas Act (U. P. No. II of 1914). It is necessary to state the facts on which the question has arisen. Asa Ram appellant runs certain ma.chines with the aid of power in premises which a.re 'in a. locality which is admittedly within the Jalalabad 1town area since the year 1953-54. He did not tll.ke out a. licence for running these ma.chines for 1953-54, as required by bye-law (7) of the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws, framed by the District Board of lduzaffarnagar, under s. 174(1) (k) read with s. 106 of, the District Boards Act. Consequently, he was prosecuted for contravening the bye-laws in question. IJe admitted that he was running these machines with the aid of power; but his contention was that as the premises where the machines were running were in the town area of Jalalabad, the bye-laws framed by the Distric~ Board did not apply to him and it was not necessary for him to take out a licence, and his prosecution at the instance of the District Board for contravenin~ the byelaws was bad. The decision of this point depended upon the construction of s. 93(3) of the Distriqt Boar~l:I Act and s. 26 of the Town Areas Act. The trial Magistrate was of the opinion, o.p a construction of the sections above-named, that the bye- • laws framed by the District Board were not applicable to premises within the Jalalabad town a.'rea., and, therefore, Asa Ram need not have taken out a. licence. He eonsequently acquitted Asa Ram. There was a revision application by the District Board, which was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicia.l), Muzaffarnagar, who agreed with the view of the 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. z958 Magistrate. The District Board then went up in revision to the High Court of Allahabad. The revision Asa Ram was heard by a learned Single Judge, who framed v. three questions which arose for determination, namely, The District Board. . f . . Muzaffarnagar (I) Is runnmg o a flour mill, etc., an offensive trade? Wancl•oo J. (2) Does the word 'regulation' used in s. 26(a) U. P. Town Areas Act include the power of issuing a licence ? and · (3) Does s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act amount to a divestment of authority of the District Board in favour of the Town Area Committee ? On the first question, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the machines run by Asa Ram would come within the provisions of s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act, though he also took the view that it was not necessary for him to decide the point. On the second question, he held that 'regulation' did not include the power of granting a licence, though this was against a Division Bench authority of that High Court reported as Municipal Board, Hathras v. Behrey Narain Dutt (1). He relied on a decision of this Court in Mohamad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee, J alalabad (') also in this connection. On the third question he was of the view that s. 93(3) barred the District Board from exercising any authority in a town area which is vested in the body mentioned in it. He was further of the view that the amendment of the Town Areas Act in 1934 by which the word 'Panchayat' occurring in the Town Areas Act was substituted throughout by the word 'Committee' made no difference even though s. 93(3) of the District Boards Act was not simultaneously amended by substituting the words 'Town Area Committee' for the words 'Town Panchayat' therein in conformity with the change made in the Town Areas Act. But in view of his decision on the second question, viz., that 'regulation' did not include the power of granting a licence, he held that bye-laws framed by the District Board for taking out licences applied to premises within the town areas. He, therefore, set aside the acquittal and (1) A.I.R. 1948 All. 1. (2) [1952J S.C.R. 572. r (1} S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719 ordered a. retrial. He also gave leave to appeal to this r95B Court. · A R The three points formulated by the High Court sav. am arise for decision before us also. The learned Solicitor The District Boaul,_ General appearing for the District Board does qot chalMuzaffamagar lenge the correctness of the decision on the first point, namely, whether the running of the machines which the Wanchoo J. appellant is running would come within the relevant words of s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act. It is, enough in t)iis connection to set out the two provision~ in the two Acts to see that the decision is correct. Section 174 (l){k) of the District Boards Act, under wh~ch the bye-laws were framed is in these t,:erms- " regulating slaughter houses and offensive, dangerous or obnoxious trades, callings, or pfactices and prescribing fees to defray the expenditure incurred by a board for this purpose." · Section 26(a) of the Town Areas Act is in these terms- " The Committee may by general or speci~l order in writing provide and if so ad vised by the district magistrate shall provide for a.11 or any of the following matters within the town area, namely :- (a) the regulation of offensive callings or trades; " .......................................................... ., .. It is obvious therefore thats. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act is co-extensive with s. 174(1) (k) of the District Boards Act, so far as regulation of offensive traides or callings is concerned. As the learned Solicitor General does not contest the finding of the High Court th11t the trades in question carried on by Asa Ram with his machines with the aid of power are offensive trades, it follows that the Town Area Committee has power to regulate these trades as well as the District Board. So far as the second point is concerned, the le1i.rned Solicitor General concedes that 'regulation' would include the power of issuing a licence-and · very rightly so. No case has been brought to our notice in which this Court held that power of 'regulation'. does not include the power of issuing a licence and that issue of a licence amounts to prohibition and is not a. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. r95B restriction on carrying on a trade or business. It is Asa Ram enough to point out that the District Boards Act v. under which these bye-laws have been framed does not Th• Disfricl Board, specifically provide anywhere for granting of licences. Muzaffarn•c•• Section 174(1) (k) itself speaks only of regulating offensive trades, etc., and has not given in so many words Wan•hoo J. power to issue licences. It is true that s. 106 provides that the board may