TMI Blog1946 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within or without the city, as he has and is subject to under the provisions hereinbefore contained for carrying, renewing and repairing drains within the city. 3. The terms of this section thus necessitate a reference to Chapter IX, which has for its subject Drains and Drainage-works, and contains Section 222(1), which says:- The Commissioner may carry any municipal drain through, across or under any street, or any place laid out as or intended to be a street, or under any cellar or vault which may be under any street, and, after giving reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier, into, through or under any land whatsoever within the city, or, for the purpose of outfall or distribution of sewage, without the city. 4. It appears from the special case, and from the correspondence annexed thereto, that the Corporation wished to lay a water-main in a road known as Antop Hill Road, for the convenience of residents in the district known as Antop Hill. The case states that the land in the locality of Antop Hill is for the most part private land belonging to the Government of Bombay, and the road serving the locality, known as Antop Hill Road, is also a private roa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must then be inferred that the Crown, by assenting to the law, agreed to be bound by its provisions. 8. In the judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice, in which Rajadhyaksha J. concurred, the principle that the Crown is not bound by legislation in which it is not named expressly or by necessary implication was in terms accepted, but an interpretation was placed upon it which their Lordships are unable to approve. After stating the principle in the words just quoted, the learned Chief Justice went on to say that if it can be shown that legislation cannot operate with reasonable efficiency unless the Crown is bound, that would be a sufficient reason for saying that the Crown is bound by necessary implication , and he concluded his judgment by enunciating the proposition that if the provisions of the Act cannot operate efficiently and smoothly unless the Crown is bound-the Crown must be held to be bound by necessary implication. Applying the general principle in this sense, and in the light of the knowledge which the Court had of existing conditions in Bombay, the Chief Justice came to the conclusion that the Corporation could not be sure of carrying out its statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat one object of the Legislature is to promote the welfare and convenience of a large body of the King's subjects by giving extensive powers to a local authority, it cannot be said, consistently with the decided cases, that the Crown is necessarily bound by the enactment. In the recent case of Attorney-General v. Hancock [1940] 1 K.B. 427, 435, Wrottesley J. cited a series of decisions in which the Crown was held not to be bound although the statute in question was clearly for the public benefit. A plain and striking example is the case which their Lordships have already cited of Gorton Local Board v. Prison Commissioners (supra), where it was held that a by-law, mada under the Public Health Act, 1875, and clearly designed to safeguard the health of the public, did not bind the Crown, and gave the local board no control over one of His Majesty's prisons. In the present case the High Court disposed of the submission by a finding that, on the material before them, it was not shown to be for the public good that the Crown should be bound by the Municipal Act. This is perhaps not a wholly satisfactory way of dealing with the respondents' contention, which was, not that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not property held jure coronae, but has been acquired from a subject-superior for the use of one of the public departments. 13. In the present ease it appears that the land of the Crown is not held jure coronae but, as has been said, was acquired from private owners, so that the dicta of the learned Lord President are directly in point. Their Lordships thought it right to require further argument on this aspect of the appeal, but, after careful consideration, remain of opinion that the law of England, and of India, is what they have stated it to be, and that no distinction can be drawn in such a case as the present between property held jure coronae and other property of the Crown. The view expressed in the Scottish cases has not been adopted in England, and does not seem to their Lordships to be in accordance with a body of English authority which, where an ancient doctrine of the common law of England is in question, ought in their Lordships' opinion to prevail. 14. Their Lordships have accordingly considered the question before them in the 'light of the principle as they have stated it. In so stating it their Lordships believe that they have done no more than expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
