MERCHANT, KARELIGUNJ Vs. NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, KARELIGUNJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. On the complaint of the Notified Area Committee, Kareligunj, the applicant, who is a merchant carrying on grain and timber business at Kareliganj, Tahsil Narsinghpur, was convicted by the Naib Tahsildar and Magistrate, Second Class, of having committed a breach of bye-law No. 3 framed by the complainant committee under notification No. 987/611/8, dated 18th March 1926 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. This conviction and the sentence were upheld in appeal by the Additional District Magistrate, Narsinghpur, and the applicant has therefore come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) THE facts are these : On 4th January 1931 the applicant purchased from Putti (P. W. 5) timber worth Rs. 18, but actually paid him Rs. 16-8-0 after deducting Re. 1-810 on account of Adhat dalali. He also purchased on 4th May 1931 from Mohammad (P. W. 3) timber worth Rs. 178-8-0 and only paid Rs. 163 to the seller after deducting Rs. 15-8-0 on account of dalali, hamali, dharmadav, etc. These deductions were made pursuant to the trade usage, but it was alleged that the conduct of the applicant amounted to a breach of the aforesaid bye-law which runs as under : No deduction in kind or cash from the cotton, grain or timber exposed for sale or purchased shall be demanded or received by the purchaser, adatya or dalal on account of charity gratuity, services of private persons or on any other plea."

(3.) IT was contended for the applicant that the aforesaid notification was ultra vires of the committee for two reasons : (a) because it is repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, which regulates the rights and liabilities of purchasers and sellers of commodities, and (b) because Section 179 (1) (b) only authorizies framing of bye-laws "for inspecting and regulating the use" of "markets" and not for controlling the trade relations between traders transacting business in the municipal markets. In support of the first proposition reliance was placed by Mr. Kedar, for the applicant, on para. 761 of Halsbury's. Laws of England, Vol. 8, p. 338, which runs as under : A bye-law must not be repugnant to the general law. It is not repugnant merely because it supplements the general law and deals with something which is not dealt with by the general law. But it must not alter, either expressly or by necessary implication, the general law by making that lawful which the general law makes unlawful, or that unlawful which the general law makes lawful.