039-NLR-NLR-V-73-O.-L.-M.-M.-CASSIM-Appellant-and-THE-OFFICER-IN–CHARGE-POLICE-STATION-MOR.pdf
Caasim v. Ojfficer-in-Charge, Police Station, Moratuvca
227
1970Present: Siva Supramaniam, J.O.L. M. M. CASSLM, Appellant, and THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION, MORATUWA,RespondentS. C. 110/G9—M. C. Punadvra, S723Control of Prices Act, So. 29 oj 1950—S’diont 4 (1) and S (7)—Box of matches—Controlled maximum price thereof—Incapacity of Controller of Prices to fix theprice—Manufacture of Matches Ordinance, So. 9 of 193S, as. 10, 10 (4), 11 (7)(a)—Manufacture of Matches (Regulation) Act, So. C of J9C3, ss. 5, 10 (1)—little of construction Gonornlia speoialibus non dcrognnt.
An order roedo by tho Controller of Pricos fixing tho controlled maximumprice of a box of matches is ultra vires tho powers vested in him undor thoControl of Prices Act. Tho power of dotormining tho maximum price in respoctof matches manufactured in Cotlon has boon specially vested in tho Minister bythe later Manufacture of Matchos (Regulation) Act No. G of 1963.
1 (1967) 70 S. L. R. at p. 136.
228 SIVA SUPRAMAXIAM, J.—Cassim v. OjJiccr-in-Chargt, Police Station,
Moral u uo
A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Panadura.
P.Nagendran, with J. Wilson Fernando, for the accused-appellant.Priyanlha Perera, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
Marcli 12, 1970. Siva Supramaxia.m, J.—
The appellant was convicted of the offence of selling a box of matchesfor six cents in contravention of an order made by the Controller ofPrices under s. 4 of the Control of Prices Act fixing the controlled maxi-mum price of a box containing not less than 50 sticks at five cents andsentenced to 6 weeks’ rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100, indefault a further six weeks R.I.
The facts have not been contested in appeal. The conviction is. challenged on a question of law, namely, that the order made by theController of Prices fixing the controlled maximum price of a box ofmatches is ultra vires the powers vested in him under the Control ofPrices Act.
The relevant part of Section 4 of the Control of Prices Act Xo. 29 of1950 reads as follows :—
“ (1) If it appears to the Controller that there is, or is likely toarise, in any part of Ceylon, any shortage of any article or any un-reasonable increase in the price of any article, the Controller may byOrder—
(a) fix the maximum price (both wholesale and retail) above whichthat article shall not be sold ;”
Acting under the said power, the Controller made an Order fixing the-controlled maximum prices of various sizes of boxes of matches.
S. 8 (1) provides that every person who acts in contravention of anyOrder made under this Act shall be guilty of an offence.
Prior to the passing of the aforesaid Act the Legislature had enacted aspecial Statute relating to the Manufacture of Matches, Ordinance No. 9of 1938, and section 10 of that Ordinance empowered the Minister tomake regulations for the purpose of carrying out or giving effect to theprinciples and provisions of the Ordinance. One of the matters in respectof which he was specially empowered to make regulations was " thedetermination and notification of the minimum price below which or themaximum price above which matches shall not be sold either wholesale orby retail.” A regulation had accordingly been made by the Ministerfixing the maximum price of matches.
SIVA SUPRAMANIAM, J.—Cassim v. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, 229
Moratuua
S. 10 (4) provided that “ a regulation made by the Minister whenapproved by the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon thenotification of such approval in the Gazette, be as valid and effectual asif it were herein enacted ”, S. 11(1) (a) provided that “ any person whocommits a breach of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or of anyregulation made thereundershall be guilty of an offence.”
It will be seen, therefore, that in respect of matches, the Ordinancegave a special power to the Minister to fix the maximum sale price and asale in contravention of the price so fixed was punishable as an offence.
Under the rule of construction " Gencralia spccialibus non derogant ”,the general power conferred on the Controller of Prices under the Controlof Prices Act would not have taken away the special power conferred onthe Minister in respect of matches under the earlier statute.
The aforesaid Ordinance was, however, repealed in 1963 and a new Actcalled the Manufacture of Matches (Regulations) Act, No. 6 of 1963, wasenacted in its place. Section 5 of that Act provides as follow s :—
“ (1) The Minister may from time to time by notification publishedin the Gazette determine the maximum price in respect of matchesmanufactured in Ceylon.
(2) No person shall sell or offer for sale any matches at a price inexcess of the price so determined by the Minister.”
Under S. 10(1) any person who contravenes any provision of this Act orof any regulation made thereunder is guilty of an offence.
It was conceded by Crown Counsel that the Minister has, in fact, bynotification, fixed the maximum prices above which tlie various types ofboxes of matches should not be sold. He submitted, however, that thereis no conflict with the Order made by the Minister as the Controller ofPrices has adopted the same prices in the Order made by him under theControl of Prices Act. That the Controller has adopted the same pricesis irrelevant to the question whether he bad the power under the Controlof Prices Act to fix the maximum prices above which the various types ofboxes of matches should not be sold.
It is noteworthy that, both before and after the enactment of theControl of Prices Act, the legislature vested in the Minister a specialpower to fix the price in respect of matches. The legislature could nothave intended to vest the same power at the same time in two different-authorities.
Maxwell, in his Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edition page 161),says : “ When a local Act empowered one body to name the streets andto number the houses in a town, and another local Act gave the same
230
Duraiappah v. Municipal Commissioner, Jaffna
power to another body, the earlier would be superseded by the later Act,for to leave the power with both would be to defeat the object of thelegislature.”
The special power vested in the Minister under the later enactmentNo. 6 of 19G3 is inconsistent with the general power conferred on theController of Prices under the earlier enactment Xo. 29 of 1950.
The general power must therefore be deemed to be modified -pro tanloin respect of the control of the price of matches. A person who sellsmatches in contravention of the price fixed by the Minister can bepunished under the provisions of the Manufact vre of Matches (Regulation)Act.
I am of opinion, therefore, that the Price Control Order in respect ofmatches made by the Controller was ultra vires his powers under the Act.The appellant, consequently, committed no offence by contravening it.
I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitthe appellant.
Appeal allowed.