Continuing effect of prior municipal notification upheld after repeal, validating boundary inclusion under the later Assam law.

The earlier 1951 notification under the Assam Municipal Act, 1923 continued in force after repeal and re-enactment because Section 26 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 preserves notifications made under a repealed law unless the new enactment expressly excludes them or the continuation is inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions. No express exclusion or inconsistency was present. The attempted savings in the 1958 amendment was not the basis of validity. As a result, the State Government validly relied on the continuing notification and Section 4 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1957 to include contiguous local area within the Nazira Town Committee boundary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification issued under the earlier municipal law continued in force after repeal and re-enactment, so that the State Government could validly alter the Nazira Town Committee boundary under the later Act.

Analysis: The earlier notification issued in 1951 under the Assam Municipal Act, I of 1923 was not expressly superseded by the Assam Municipal Act, 15 of 1957. The attempted saving by the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 17 of 1958 was not the foundation of validity. The controlling provision was Section 26 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, which preserves notifications made under a repealed enactment when the new enactment re-enacts the law, unless the new law expressly provides otherwise or the continuance is inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions. No such express exclusion or inconsistency existed here. The continuing force of the prior notification meant that the State Government could act under Section 4 of the Assam Municipal Act, 15 of 1957 to include contiguous local area within the Town Committee.

Conclusion: The notification was valid and continued to operate after the repeal and re-enactment, and the boundary inclusion made under the later Act was within power.

---