Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan vs Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014
55. In so far as plea of Mr. Yadav, without admitting that Clause (i) of the
Office Order No. 29/83 does not apply to the case of the petitioner, that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of clause 8 of the Office Order No. 23/76
dated March 31, 1976 being a general order is concerned, firstly the 1976
Office Order is a general order, which held the field till the issuance of the
Office Order No. 29/83, which specifically relates to premises which are
leased out to Foreign Missions. After the issuance of Office Order No.
29/83, the misuse charges are regulated (and ought to be) thereunder, being a
specific order and not under order 23/1976 as stated by Mr. Yadav, on the
principle of law that when general law and a special law dealing with some
aspect dealt with by the general law are in question, the rule adopted and
applied is one of harmonious construction whereby the general law, to the
extent dealt with by the special law, is impliedly repealed. This principle
finds its origin in the latin maxim of generalia specialibus non derogant, i.e.,
general law yields to special law should they operate in the same field, on
W.P.(C) No. 5022/2016 Page 45 of 50
same subject (Ref. Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements
Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2003). So it follows, neither clause
(7) nor clause (8), which I reproduce below, of the Office Order No. 23/76 is
applicable to the case in hand.