Kerala High Court
Maluk Mohammed Sainuddin vs Municipal Commissioner, Attingal And ... on 16 February, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 KERALA 12, 1972 KER LJ 384 1972 KER LT 300, 1972 KER LT 300
ORDER K. Sadasivan, J.
1. 4th defendant is the revision petitioner. He is the licensee of an evening market within the Mudakkal Pan-chayat in Chirayinkil taluk. The suit was filed by the Attingal Municipal Council to restrain the revision petitioner and others from conducting the market on the ground that the evening market is within the prohibited distance from the Avanavancheny public market conducted under licence issued by the Municipal Council. An interim injunction prayed for was granted by the Munsiff which has been confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Attingal.
2. The point taken before this Court is that the courts below have gone in excess of their jurisdiction in granting the prayer for injunction to restrain the functioning of a market under licence validly granted by the Panchayat. Counsel argues that the power of the Panchayat to grant licence for market within the Panchayat limits is absolute and cannot be fettered by the existence of another public or private market outside the limits of the Panchayat In other words, the contention is that the inhibition regarding distance can apply only to another market within a Panchayat and that cannot apply to a market established by licence issued by the Municipality. The expression "an existing public or private market" in Rule 26 of the Public and Private Market Rules cannot, according to the learned Counsel, relate to a public or private market established under the Municipalities Act, but can apply only to a public or private market established under the Panchayat Act. An existing public or private market, learned Counsel went on, must be understood as a public or private market owned, constructed, repaired or maintained by the Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would maintain that the Panchayat Act and the Municipalities Act should be construed as statutes in pan materia and should be read and understood as laying down rules to carry out the same purpose or in relation to the same subject-matter. In this context, therefore, the expression "public or private market" found in Rule 26 should be understood as a public or private market already in existence, whether under the Panchayat Act or under the Kerala Municipalities Act. Viewed in this perspective the evening market sanctioned in favour of the revision petitioner should be held to be in violation of the rules relating to distance. Under Rule 26 a Panchayat shall not, except with the prior sanction of the Director of Panchayats, open a new public market nor issue licence for a private market if the site for such market is within the distance of 3 Km. from an existing public or private market. The Avanavancherry public market was already functioning in the Municipality while the licence was granted by the Panchayat to the revision petitioner to start the impugned evening market within the limits of the Mudakkal Panchayat. It has come in the evidence that the distance between the Avanavancherry Municipal Market place and the evening market is 1.51 Km. and the distance from the limits of the Municipal Market to the evening market is 1.4 Km. Instead of the Municipal Market now under consideration, if the market that was already in existence was one established under licence issued by the Panchayat it would certainly have been hit by the rule and the Panchayat authorities would not have issued the licence. The principle underlying the restriction regarding distance between the two markets is to avoid unhealthy competition and the evil consequences that normally flow from such a situation. If that is the purpose, the evil sought to be avoided is there even if the existing market is one established under the Municipalities Act. The expression used, as stated earlier, is "an existing public or private market" and not a public or private market already existing or functioning under the Panchayat Act. The Avanavancherry Public Market run under orders of the Municipality is thus an existing public market. The ban in Rule 26 must, therefore, apply.
3. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 9th Edition, pages 35-36 observes:
"Where there are different statutes in pan materia, though made at different times, or even expired and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as one system and as explanatory to each other."
Craies on Statute Law, in dealing with a similar situation, observes thus on page 103 (6th edition):
"The effect of this is in one sense to supply the equity of the statute; but in truth no more is done than to construe the statute according to its plain language, though the effect of the construction is incidentally and equitably to deny to local authorities an overriding privilege, such as would exempt them from all forms of injunction."
The two statutes in the present instance, namely the Kerala Municipalities Act and the Kerala Panchayat Act, aim at the same purpose in the matter of sanctioning market. Thus the two statutes are to be treated as statutes in pan materia.
"Statutes which relate to the same subject, the same person or thing, or the same class -of persons or things, are deemed to constitute one system of law; they are considered as one statute, subsequent laws are regarded as supplementary or complementary to the earlier enactments. When enacting a new law the Legislature is presumed to have had in contemplation the existing statutes on the same subject, and to have framed its enactment with reference thereto. This is the real basis for the rule in pari materia. Dwarris observes: `It is to be inferred, that a code of statutes relating to one subject was governed by one spirit and policy and intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions. It is therefore an established rule of law, that all Acts in pari materia are to be taken together, as if they were one law; and they are directed to be compared in the construction of statutes, because they are considered as framed upon one system, and having one object in view', The rule is thus an extension of the principle that the whole statute is to be viewed and compared in all its parts, in order to ascertain the meaning of any of its parts. All laws relating to a particular matter or subject, that is, laws in pari materia, bear the same relation to any law within the group or system as the whole statute bears to any of its several parts." (Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, 5th Edition, page 292).
There cannot be any doubt that the Municipalities Act and the Panchayat Act are two statutes coming within the same group or system with almost the same object and view. In interpreting one Act the possible effect of such interpretation on the other will have to be kept in view to carry out and maintain harmony in interpretation. Viewed in any sense, therefore, the action of the Panchayat in issuing licence to the revi-vision petitioner for the evening market is prima facie in violation of Rule 26. The injunction issued by the lower court is hence correct and in confirmation of it this revision petition is dismissed.