Implied repeal by later enabling law rejected where municipal transport powers could coexist with motor vehicles regulation.

Sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act were not impliedly repealed by section 72 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Act because repeal by implication is disfavoured unless the provisions are irreconcilably inconsistent or the later enactment clearly occupies the whole field. The municipal provisions and the later motor vehicles provision were both enabling in nature and capable of co-existence, with section 72 operating over a wider territorial field and requiring consultation with the local authority. In the absence of any exercise of power under section 72, the municipal resolutions remained operative and valid until displaced by action under the later provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act were repealed by implication by section 72 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Act.

Analysis: The governing principle is that repeal by implication is not favoured and can arise only where the later enactment and the earlier enactment are so inconsistent or repugnant that they cannot stand together, or where the later law is intended to cover the whole subject matter exhaustively. Sections 286 and 287 empowered the municipality to provide halting places, levy fees, and regulate use around the bus stand, while section 72 empowered the Government or authorised authority, in consultation with the local authority, to determine places where motor vehicles may stand or stop. The two provisions were held to be capable of co-existence because both were enabling in nature, the later provision had a wider territorial field, and no necessary conflict arose merely because the later power might in a given case override an earlier municipal action. The absence of any exercise of power under section 72 also meant that the municipal resolutions remained operative.

Conclusion: Sections 286 and 287 were not repealed by implication by section 72, and the municipal action was valid until displaced by action under the later provision.

Ratio Decidendi: A later general enabling statute does not impliedly repeal an earlier special enabling statute unless the two are irreconcilably inconsistent or the later law clearly occupies the entire field.

---