P. D. KUDAL, J. - (1.) THESE eight appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi. As Common questions of law are involved in all these appeals they are being disposed of by this single judgment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the cases, which are relevant for the disposal of these appeals are that the non-petitioners were running flour mills. THE non-petitioners did not get their respective licenses renewed after the expiry of the period. THE contention of the Municipal Committee is that the respondents have, thus, aviated bye-laws Nos. 1 and 13 of 1947. On a complaint filed on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Bundi the Assistant Collector and Magistrate First Class, Bundi sentenced the respondents to pay fine and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for violating the bye-laws Nos. 1 and 13 of 1947. THE respondents feeling aggrieved against the orders of the learned Asstt. Collector and Magistrate First Class, Bundi filed appeals before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi praying that their conviction was against law and that it should be set aside. THE contention of the respondents was that bye-laws of 1947 have been repealed and the learned trial Magistrate erred in law in holding that these bye-laws were saved by Section 2 (b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the appeals and held that the bye-laws of 1947, were not saved, and they stood repealed and as such, the conviction and sentence of the respondents was illegal and was accordingly set aside. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the cases carefully perused. The U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was made applicable to the erstwhile State of Bundi in 1947. This position is not disputed by any of the parties. The impugned bye-laws were framed under Section 298 (3) of the UP. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act of 1916 ). These bye-laws were brought into force by issuing a notification. Bye-law No. 1 provides a compulsory license for running a flour mill by power, and bye-law No. 13 provides a license fee of Rs. 40/- per year, and also makes provision for its renewal. The Government of the United States of Rajasthan issued Ordinance No. 4 of 1949, which became operative from February 16, 1949. Section 4 of this Ordinance reads as under: - "all laws, and orders, rules, notifications, and other instruments having the force of law, which relate to municipalities or to any particular municipality which are in force in the whole or any part of the area of any Covenanting State are hereby repealed; Provided that (a) this repeal shall not affect the validity of any appointment, or any grant or appropriation of money or property, or any tax or impost, made or imposed under any such law, order, rules, notifications or instruments; (b) nothing in this repeal shall affect the terms of remuneration or right to pension of any officer appointed before the commencement of this Ordinance; (c) the Government of the United States of Rajasthan may by notification in the Official Gazette make such provisions, general or special as they may think necessary or proper in consequence to this appeal; and (d) nothing in this section shall repeal the Udaipur City Municipalities Act, 1945. " In consequence of the promulgation of this Ordinance, all laws, bye-laws, and orders relating to the Municipalities which were in force in any part of the areas of covenanting States were repealed. But the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was adopted and made applicable to the areas to which the Ordinance applied. The U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, was made applicable with certain adaptations and changes. The position which crystallises is that the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was already in force in the erstwhile State of Bundi. By Ordinance No. 4 of 1949, the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, was again made applicable to the erstwhile State of Bundi with certain changes and adaptations. In the year 1951, the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, came into force. This Act was repealed by the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The basic point for consideration is, whether the bye-laws which were framed in the year 1947, under the U. P. Municipalities Act. 1916, continued to be operative in the year 1970; whether these bye-laws of the year 1947, still survived despite the Ordinance No. 4 of 1949; and whether they are further saved by the repeal and saving clause in 1951 and 1959 Acts, whether by virtue of Sections 6 and 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, these bye-laws were saved Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act is para materia with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Similarly, Section 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act is para materia with Section 24 of the General Clauses Act.
(3.) ON behalf of the Municipal Committee, Bundi it has been contended that the Ordinance No. 4 of 1949 could not have created a vacuum and the bye-laws which were framed in the year 1947, could not be deemed to have been repealed by Section 4 of this Ordinance. It was also contended that Sec-tion 24 of the General Clauses Act saves these bye-laws and by no stretch of imagination it could be said that these bye-laws stood repealed by promul-gation of the Ordinance No. 4 of 1949. It was also contended that the license fee for running a flour mill is an impost and is as such, saved by virtue of Section 4 (a) of the Ordinance No. 4 of 1949. Reliance has been placed on Chief Inspector of Mines vs. K. C. Thapar (1), wherein at page 843, it has been held as under: - "the construction will give reasonable effect to sec. 31 (4) of the Mines Act 1923 and at the same time not frustrate the very salutary object of sec 24 of the General Clauses Act. ONe may pause here to remember that regulations framed under an Act are of the very greatest importance. Such regulations are framed for the successful operation of the Act. Without proper regulations, a statute will often be worse than useless. When an Act is repealed, but re-enacted, it is almost inevitable that there will be some time lag between the re-enacted statute coming into force, and regulations being framed under there-enacted statute. However efficient the rule-making authority may be it is impossible to avoid some hiatus between the coming into force of the re-enacted statute and the simultaneous repeal of the old Act and the making of regulations. Often, the time lag would be considerable It is conceivable that any legislature, in providing that regulations made under its statute will have effect as if enacted in the Act, could have intended by those words to say that if ever the Act is repealed and re enacted (as is more than likely to happen sooner or later), the regulations will have to existence for the purpose of the re-enacted statute, and thus the re-enacted statute, for some time at least, will be in many respects, a dead letter The answer must be in the negative. Whatever the purpose be which induced the draftsmen to adopt this legislative form as regards the rules and regulations that they will have effect "as if enacted in the Act. " It will be strange indeed if the result of the language used, be that by becoming part of the Act, they would stand repealed, when the Act is repealed. ONe can be certain that that could not have been the intention of the legislature. It is satisfactory that the words used do not produce that result For if we apply the rule of harmonious construction, as has been pointed out above. S. 31 (4) does not stand in the way of the operation of S. 24 of the General Clauses Act. " A similar view was taken in Neel vs. State of W. B. (2 ). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that neither Section 6, nor, Section 24 of the General Clauses Act saves the repeal of the bye-laws of 1947. It has also been contended that Section 4 of the Ordinance No. 4 of 1949 is not para materia with Section 2 (b) of 1951 and 1959 Acts Section 4 of the Ordinance 1949 specifically repeals all laws, orders rules notifications and other instructions having the force of law, while Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1951 and 1959 save the bye-laws which are not mcon-sistent with these Acts. Reliance was placed on Municipal Council, Ajmer vs. Satya Narain (3), wherein it has been held that if it is possible to treat a bye-law under the repealed law to be bye-law under the repealing Act, the bye-law should be deemed to have been saved and shall not be treated as repealed. All bye-laws can be deemed to be made under the repealed Act only when it can be made under the provisions of the Act, and not otherwise. Reliance has been placed on Municipal Board, Baran vs. Sooraj Mal (4) wherein it has been held as under: "the rules regulating the stacking of the building materials in Municipal land which were in force in the former State of Kotah stood repealed by the United States of Rajasthan Municipalities Ordinance 4 of 1949, with effect from 16/2/1949, the date of its enforcement. ' These rules, therefore, could not be pressed into service by the Municipality of Baran in 1950. Since after the commencement of the Ordinance i. e. , from 16/2/1949, the Municipality had not made any bye-laws for changing rent in connection with the occupation of Municipal land by the residents. Section 293 did not come into play and the issue of warrant of attachment for the recovery of such rent together with penalty was beyond the limits of its due authority and, therefore, unlawful. The only provision of the Act which could apply was Sec. 291 under which the Municipality could request the Collector to recover the rent as arrears of land revenue. " ;