DISTRICT BOARD GHAZIPUR Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. The respondent is carrying on the trade of hulling rice, milling grains and extracting oil in village Nandganj within the area of Gaon Sabha Barapur. He obtained licences for the three trades under the United Provinces Rice and Dal Control Order, 1948, as also under the Uttar Pradesh Pure Foods Act, 1950. Further the Gaon Sabha also imposed a licence fee of Rs 6 and a tax of Rs 8 on each mill within its jurisdiction and the respondent had been paying that as well. In 1953 the District Board, Ghazipur, in which district the village is situate, enforced bye-laws for the regulation and control of flour, rice and oil mills in the rural areas of the district under which a licence has to be obtained by such mills on payment of Rs 20 as licence-fee per year per mill. When the respondent was served with a notice to take out a licence for each mills and to pay the licence-fee, he objected to the legality and validity of the levy and thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. His contention in this connection was three-fold, namely-(i) After the constitution of Gaon Sabha Barapur under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, No. XXVI of 1947, the District Board had been divested of its power and jurisdiction in the matter of regulation and control of trade under the relevant provisions of the U.P. District Boards Act, No X of 1922; (ii) the respondent had paid the necessary licence-fees under the U. P. Rice and Dal Control Order, 1948 and the U. P. Pure Food Act, 1950 and could not be asked to pay the licence-fees over again under the District Boards Act; and (iii) in any case the levy was too high and not in proportion to the actual and probable expenses which the District Board would have to incur in controlling or regulating trade and was meant to augment the general revenues of the District Board.

(2.) The writ petition was heard by a single Judge of the High Court who appears to have dismissed it in limine by a reasoned Judgment negativing all the three contentions raised by the respondent. The respondent then went in appeal and the Appeal Court allowed the appeal holding that in view of S.111 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the District Board had lost its power to make bye-laws for the regulation and control of trade under S. 174 of the District Board Act. The Appeal Court was further of the view that the levy was not out of proportion to the expenses to be incurred by the District Board in the matter of regulation and control and was not a tax. It did not decide the third point raised on behalf of the respondent. The District Board then applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(3.) The main question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the view of the Appeal Court that the District Board has lost its power to make bye-laws under S. 174 of the District Boards Act for regulation and control of trade in view of S. 111 of the Panchayat Raj Act, is correct. Learned counsel for the appellant puts his arguments on this point in two ways. In the first place, he urges that the Panchayat Raj Act does not contain any provisions by which the Gaon Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat has been given the power to regulate or control trade and therefore even if the Panchayat Raj Act is to prevail over the District Boards Act, where the two deal with the same matter, this particular power remains in the District Board as it is not included within the powers exercisable by the Panchayats under the Panchayat Raj Act. In the alternative, he urges that the intention of the legislature was not that those provisions of the District Boards Act which are common in the two Acts should be repealed by necessary implication, and therefore the District Board's power to control and regulate trade would remain whatever may be the provision of the Panchayat Raj Act.