1963 (2) TMI 50 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside High Court's orders, upholds Municipal Council resolutions. Sections co-exist.

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALAI Versus. T.J. JOSEPH AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and quashing the writs issued by it. The Court held that sections 286 and 287 ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Municipal Council's resolutions regarding the use of a public bus stand and the imposition of fees.2. Alleged implied repeal of sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act by section 72 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Act.3. Repugnancy between the provisions of the two Acts.4. Authority of the Municipal Council versus the Government or other appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Municipal Council's Resolutions:The Municipal Council, Palai, passed a resolution on September 12, 1958, to use a public bus stand constructed by it, charging fees for its use. The resolution was modified on September 24, 1958, and November 22, 1959, adjusting the fees and prohibiting the use of other public places as bus stands within a six-furlong radius. Some bus operators did not pay the charges, leading to demand notices being issued. The respondents challenged the validity of these actions, seeking to quash the demand notices. The Municipal Council argued that the resolutions were passed under the powers conferred by sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, which allow the construction of public halting places and the levy of fees.2. Alleged Implied Repeal of Sections 286 and 287:The respondents contended that sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act were repealed by implication by section 72 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force on January 5, 1950. Section 72 empowers the Government or an authorized authority to determine parking places for motor vehicles in consultation with local authorities. The High Court accepted this contention, stating that the Motor Vehicles Act aimed to provide a uniform law relating to motor vehicles, thereby implying the repeal of sections 286 and 287 to the extent they conflicted with the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Repugnancy Between the Provisions of the Two Acts:The Supreme Court noted that for an implied repeal to occur, there must be a 'positive repugnancy' between the provisions of the old and new statutes, making them irreconcilable. The Court emphasized that there is a presumption against implied repeal, and the intent of the legislature must be clear. The Court found no direct conflict between section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sections 286 and 287 of the Municipalities Act. Section 72 could be exercised in consultation with local authorities, and the Municipal Council could still levy fees for the use of facilities it provided.4. Authority of the Municipal Council versus the Government:The Court highlighted that section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to both municipal and non-municipal areas and does not inherently conflict with the Municipal Council's powers under sections 286 and 287. The Court reasoned that both provisions could co-exist, with section 72 being a more general provision applicable to a wider area, while sections 286 and 287 were specific to municipal areas. The Court concluded that the appropriate authority under section 72 could take action in consultation with the Municipal Council, avoiding any actual conflict.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and quashing the writs issued by it. The Court held that sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act were not impliedly repealed by section 72 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Act and that the Municipal Council's resolutions were valid. The Court found no direct conflict between the provisions of the two Acts, allowing them to co-exist. There was no order as to costs since the respondents did not appear.