Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. The last point which requires to be considered is whether the Hyderabad Act had been impliedly repealed by Mysore Act 4 of 1957. For the purpose of this contention, it is assumed that the Hyderabad Act continued to be operative even after the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly became defunct and could be construed as being applicable to the Legislative Assembly of the reorganised State of Mysore. The contention of Sri Krishna Murthy is that the provisions of the Hyderabad Act can stand together with the provisions of the Mysore Act and that, therefore, an implied repeal by the latter Act should not be inferred.

The fact that there was disparity in the said earlier enactments in regard to the offices of profit declared by them, is one more circumstance which supports the view that the intention in enacting Mysore Act 4 of 1957, was to supersede the earlier laws. The continuance of those Acts which had declared certain offices of profit not covered by Mysore Act 4 of 1957, would have led to inconvenience or incongruity. In the tenth edition of Maxwell on Statutes, it is stated at page 169, that "the inconvenience or incongruity of keeping two enactments in force has justified the conclusion that one impliedly repealed the other, for the legislature is presumed not to intend such consequences." In these circumstances, I am of the view that the above mentioned earlier enactments, including the Hyderabad Act, were all impliedly repealed by Mysore Act 4 of 1957.

Hence by implication the Hyderabad Act is repealed. It is argued on the other hand, by Sri Krishna Murthy, the learned Advocate for the appellant that in spite of the reorganisation of the States, the Hyderabad Act XVIII of 1955 continues to be in force, and hence the appellant is not disqualified for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly. He mainly relies on Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act (Act XXXVII of 1956) which will be henceforth called as S, R. Act for easy reference. It is further contended that the power of repeal is vested in the competent Legislature viz. the Mysore Legislature which has not exercised it till now by expressly repealing Act XVIII of 1955 or any part thereof and there could be no implied repeal.

103. Again, the subject-matter of the Mysore Act is also the subject-matter of the Hyderabad Act. Both are laws made for the removal of disqualifications.

104. In the rule of implied repeal was thus stated : -

"...... but the principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely that if the subject-matter of the later legislation is identical with that of the earlier, so that they cannot both stand together, then the earlier is repealed by the later enactment will be equally applicable to a question under Article 254(2) where the further legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the State law."