K.M. Nanavati vs The State Of Bombay on 5 September, 1960
153. Much has been said by the counsel for the
Defendants that Section 33 of the Act is a later provision and
prevails over Section 30 of the Act. I find in "K.M. Nanavati'
(supra), the Supreme Court has treated the rule of the later
provision as one amongst a basket of rules which must operate
together with other rules and which moderate and temper each
other. Further, the Supreme Court has held that if there is a
conflict between two provisions of a statute then it has to be
determined which is the leading provision and which is the
subordinate provision and which provision must give way to the
other. I find that from the two provision viz. Sections 30 and
33(1) of the Act, Section 30 is the leading provision which is the
source of power i.e. licensing rights conferred rights upon an
owner . Section 33(1) does not deal with owner's right of
licensing.