LXMICHAND GULABCHAND Vs. PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHANPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Civil Judge, Second Class, Bhanpura, under the following circumstances ; Motor Vehicle M. B. L. 1529 was brought within the limits of Bhanpura Muncipality some time in October 1957. The Municipality thereupon recovered Rs. 900 on 13 -10 -1957 and Rs. 256.25 nP. on 16 -10 -1957 in all amounting to Rs. 1,156.25 nP. from the importer Lakhmichand Gulabchand. He, after making the deposit as per demand of the Municipality, filed the present suit challenging the legality of the levy and collection of the octroi duty from him after serving the Municipality with a statutory notice on 29 -11 -1957. The Municipality in answer to the plaintiff's challenge of the levy and collection contended that this was done lawfully in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act and the Bye -laws made thereunder. The learned Civil Judge, Bhanpura, before whom this question as regards the legality of levy and collection of the octroi duty in respect of the motor vehicle was raised felt that there was apparent conflict between the provisions of section 22 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1949, and the rules including Octroi Schedule made by the Bhanpura Municipality under sections 69 (1) (iv), 45 (i) and 46 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954. He, therefore, has referred the following questions for the opinion of the High Court: -

(2.) WHETHER the provisions of sections 69 (1) (iv), 45 (1) and 46 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, which is a general Act and the rules made thereunder levying octroi duty on motor vehicles are inconsistent with the provisions of section 22 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1949, which is a special Act. If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the provisions of section 6 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, which came into force in the Madhya Bharat region on 1 -11 -1957, retrospectively validates the levy of octroi duty under the above provisions of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954.

(3.) CRAWFORD on Statutory Construction observes: - It is not uncommon to find one statute treating a subject in general terms and another treating only a part of the same subject -matter in a more minute manner. Where this situation exists, the two statutes should be read together and harmonized. This is especially true where the two statutes are in pari materia. In the event of repugnancy, the special statute should prevail, in the absence of a contrary legislative intent, since the specific statute more clearly evidences the legislative intent than the general statute does. And this rule -that a statute relating to a specific subject controls a general statute which includes the specific subject -is not necessarily dependent on the time of the enactment of such statutes, although it may be a vital and important consideration. Similar view is expressed by Cries on Statute Law (Fifth Edition) at page 348 where the learned author quotes the observations of Lord Selborne referred to above. Having regard to these well settled principles as regards interpretation of statutes and in view of the very clear words in section 22 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1949, it cannot be doubted that that provision will prevail over the provision contained in the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954. The reference is answered accordingly.