Case: Bagalkot City Municipality Vs. Bagalkot Cement Co

2. The appellant municipality was constituted underthe Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. Section 4 of the Act gives power to the Government to declare any local area to be a municipal district and to extend, contract, or otherwise alter the limits of any municipal district. Section 9 provides that there shall be a municipality for every municipal district. Section 59 of the Act inter alia provides that a municipality may subject to certain conditions impose "an octroi on animals or goods, or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption, use or sale therein." In exercise of its powers under this section, the appellant municipality imposed an octroi duty on certain goods. Section 48 of the Act gives a municipality power to frame by-laws for various purposes including that of "fixing octroi limits". The appellant municipality framed a by-law under this section fixing octroi limits, in these terms : "The Octroi limits of the Municipal District shall be the same as the Municipal Districts." The dispute is as to the Meaning of the words "Municipal Districts" in this by-law.3. The respondent is a company owning a factory which prior to September 3, 1959 was outside the municipal district of the appellant municipality as such district was till then constituted. There is no dispute that the respondent has all along been bringing into its factory goods of the variety specified in the rule imposing the octroi duty for consumption and use therein but no duty was payable so long as the respondents factory was outside the municipal district and therefore also admittedly, outside the octroi limits as defined by the aforesaid by-law. By a notification issued on August 25, 1959, the Government of Mysore extended the municipal district of the appellant municipality with effect from September 3,1959 and as a result of this extension the respondents factory came to be included within that district. On such extension the appellant municipality demanded octroi duty on goods brought into the respondents factory contending that the factory had thereupon come within its octroi limits as defined by the by-law. The respondent disputed this contention and moved the High Court of Mysore under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant municipality to forbear from collecting the duty. The High Court did not accept the appellant municipalitys contention and issued the writ.

Reasoning:
5. We are unable to accede to this contention. It is based on S. 20 of the General Clauses Act. Now under that section, expressions used in by-laws are to have the same meaning as they have in the Act unless there is anything repugnant in the context. If there is any such repugnancy, the definition in the Act cannot be resorted to for interpreting a by-law.It seems to us that there is such repugnancy in the present case and this we now proceed to show.We, therefore, think that the expression "municipal district" in the by-law must be understood as referring to the municipal district as existing when the by-law was framed. The context would prevent the definition in the Act being applied to interpret the by-law. The by-law cannot, therefore, refer to the municipal district as from time to time existing. Now it is not in dispute that if the octroi limits fixed by the by-law are so understood then the respondents factory has all along been outside those limits and the respondent cannot be made liable to pay octroi duty. It makes no difference that its factory is now within the municipal district of the appellant municipality for it is still outside its octroi limits.As regards this argument, we first observe that nothing has been brought to our notice from which it can be gathered that it was not the intention of the legislature that on the extension of the municipal district the by-laws have not to be re-enacted. If that was not the intention of the legislature, then of course the entire foundation of the present argument would fail and it would require no further discussion. Let us however assume that it was intended that the existing by-laws would apply to the added areas without fresh re-enactment. If such was the intention, that intention must necessarily be referable to some provision in the Act. In such a case it would be because of that provision of the Act that the by-laws would be affecting people to whom they had not before their making been published and not by their own terms or force. From what we have said it does not follow that a by-law cannot under some provision in the Act other than S. 48 affect people to whom it had not been published before it was made. All that we have said is that a by-law cannot be made under S. 48 so as to affect people by its own terms or force unless to them it had been previouslythis seems to us to be to no purpose. The respondent is not basing its objection to pay the octroi duty on this ground. All that it says is that it is not liable as its factory is not within the octroi limits. It raises a question of interpretation of the by-law. The fact that the respondent could have objected to the extension of the municipal district is wholly irrelevant in interpreting the by-law fixing the octroi limits and the only question in this case is of such interpretation. We may add that if a by-law is invalid because it had not been published to persons likely to be affected by it, it would not become valid when the municipal district of the municipality concerned was extended on notice to everyone entitled to object to thefallacy in this argument seems to us to be that even if a by-law was framed in identical words now, the content of it would be different, the municipal district contemplated by the new by-law would be different from that contemplated by earlier one. Therefore, in substance, the by-law would be a changed one in spite o the identity of its form. It would be different in effect.15. In the view that we have taken we think it unnecessary to pronounce upon the contention of the respondent that the definition in S. 3 (5) of the Act did not contemplate a municipal district as from time to time constituted.