http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: CANTONMENT BOARD, MHOW, SAUGOR & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN,REWA TRANSPORT SERVICES, REWA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/04/1997

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH       CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6160, 6161, 6162, 6242, 6243/83                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK, J.      These six  appeals raise  a  common  question  and  are directed against  the judgment  of the  Madhya Pradesh  High Court, the  said common  question of  law being  whether the Cantonment Board  is entitled  to levy  entry tax  on  Motor Vehicles? The  High Court  of Madhya Pradesh by the impugned judgments has come to the conclusion that in view of the bar of imposition  of tax  by any  local authority  contained in Section 6(1)  of the  Madhya pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947  (hereinafter referred  to  as  the  ‘Municipality could not  have imposed  the entry  tax  on  Motor  Vehicles conferred  under   Section  127   of  the   Madhya   Pradesh Municipalities Act,  1961 (hereinafter  referred to  as  the ‘Municipalities Act’ ) and consequently the Cantonment Board in  exercise  of  its  power  under  Section  60(1)  of  the Cantonment Act cannot impose the entry tax on motor vehicles , the  said power  be  co-extensive  with  the  power  of  a Municipality under Section 127 of the Municipalities Act.      The broad  facts leading  to the  impugned judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court may be briefly stated as under:-      To consolidate  and  amend  the  law  relating  to  the administration of  cantonments the cantonments Act 1924 (Act 2 of  1924) was  enacted in  place of the earlier Cantonment Act (Act  15 of  1910 and  the Cantonment  Code of  1912) to bring the  law relating to the Administration of Cantonments in conformity  with the  ordinary Municipal Law. Cantonments is defined in Section 3 of the said Act to mean any place or places in  which any  part of  the Forces is quartered to be declared and notified in the official Gazette by the Central Government. Under  Section 10  of the  said  Act  for  every Cantonment there  shall be  a Cantonment Board and  the said Board is  a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal  with power  to acquire  and hold  property both moveable and  immovable  as provided under Section 60 of the Act is  a General  Power of  taxation which may be extracted herein Below:-      60. General  Power of taxation: (1)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    The Board  may, with  the  previous      sanction of the Central Government,      impose in  any cantonment  any  tax      which under  any enactment  for the      time being in force, may be imposed      in  any   municipality   in   state      wherein    such    cantonment    is      situated.      (2)  Any  tax  imposed  under  this      section shall  take effect from the      date of  its notification  official      Gazette or  where  any  later  date      specified in  this  behalf  in  the      notification, from such later date.      The Madhya  Pradesh Motor  Vehicles Taxation  Act, 1947 (M.P. Act  No. VI. of 19470 provide for the levy of a tax on Motor Vehicles  in Madhya Pradesh. Section 3(1) the said Act entitled  the  Taxation  Authority  to  levy  tax  on  motor vehicles used  or kept  for use at the rate specified in the First Schedule read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act.  While the  Taxation Act  was in  force the Madhya Pradesh   legislatures   enacted   the   law   relating   to Municipalities and to make better provision for organisation and  administration  of  Municipalities  in  Madhya  Pradesh Called the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P. Act No. 37  of 1961).  The aforesaid municipalities Act repealed the earlier  law relating  to  Municipalities  in  different parts of  Madhya Pradesh,  namely, the central Provinces and Berar  Municipalities   Act,   1922,   the   Madhya   Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, the Vindhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1946,  and the  Bhopal State  Municipalities Act, 1955. Section 127(1)(iii) of the said municipalities Act which has direct bearing  in deciding  the controversy that has arisen in these appeals may be extracted hereinafter in extenso for better appreciation of the point in issue.      127. Taxes which may be imposed-(1)      A council  may, from  time to time,      and subject  to the  provisions  of      this Chapter,  and any  general  or      special  order   which  the   state      Government may make in this behalf,      impose in  the whole or in any part      of  the  Municipality  any  of  the      following taxes,  for the  purposes      of the Act, namely:-      (iii) a  tax on vehicles, boats and      animals used  as aforesaid entering      the limits  of the Municipality but      not liable to taxation under clause      (ii).      The Cantonment  Board Saugor  by Notification  No.  344 dated November  24, 1973  in exercise of power under section 60 of  the Cantonment  act made  provision for imposition of Vehicles Entry  Tax at  the  rates  specified  in  the  said Notification.  Similarly   the  Cantonment  Board,  Mhow  by Notification dated  19.12.1979 imposed  similar entry tax on Motor  Vehicles.   The   Cantonment   Board,   Jabalpur   by notification dated  6th May, 1978 also imposed the entry tax on motor  Vehicles in  exercise of power under section 60 of the  cantonment  Act.  All  these  Notifications  issued  by different  Cantonment  Boards  were  challenged  before  the Madhya Pradesh  High Court  by filling  writ petitions  were allowed by  the impugned  judgments of the High Court and it was held  that the  Cantonment Board  has no  power to  levy entry tax  on motor  vehicles so  long as  the  prohibitions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

contained in  section 6  of the  Taxation Act  continues and accordingly notifications  issued by  the  Cantonment  Board were quashed and thus the present appeals.      Mr. Lekhi,  learned senior  counsel appearing  for  the different cantonment  Boards  as  well  as  Mr.  Subba  Rao, learned counsel  appearing for some of the cantonment Boards challenged the  correctness of  the judgment  of the  Madhya Pradesh High  Court  inter  alia  on  the  ground  that  the Municipalities Act  being a later Act than the Taxation Act, the provisions  of the  later Act  would prevail if there is any repugnancy between these two. In this view of the matter the imposition of entry tax having been provided for section 127 (iii)  of the  Municipalities Act,  the  same  could  be lawfully levied  by the Cantonment Board under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act. It was further contended that though the Municipalities Act  did not  expressly repeal the provisions of the  Taxation Act  but the  same being  a later  Act  the principles  of   implied  repeal   should  be   applied  and therefore, any  embargo contained  in the  Taxation Act  for levy of  entry tax  because of section 6 of the Taxation Act will have no application. It was also urged that the proviso to section  7 of  the Taxation  Act would  indicate that the embargo contained  in Section 6  of the said Act would apply only if  the Cantonment  Board agrees not to recover any tax and in  the absence  of any  consent of the Cantonment Board the embargo  contained in  imposition of tax under Section 6 of the  Taxation Act  will not  apply.  Mr.  Lekhi,  learned senior counsel  also urged  that the Taxation Act having not provided for  any levy  on the entry of Motor Vehicles as is provided under Section 127 (1)(ii) of the Municipalities Act there is  infact no  repugnancy between  tow provisions and, therefore, so far as the levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is  concerned,   it  must  be  held  that  the  prohibitions contained in  Section 6  of the  Taxation Act  will not  get attracted.  Lastly   Mr.  Lekhi   argued  that  doctrine  of desuetude should apply in the present case in as much as the provisions of  section 7  of the Taxation Act though enacted since 1947  has not been in use so far and no grant has ever been given  to the  appellants cantonment Boards or for that matter to any other local authorities.      Mr. Agrawal,  learned senior  counsel appearing for the respondents and  Mr. S.K.  Mehta, learned  counsel appearing for some of the respondents on the other hand contended that the statutory  interpretation contained  in the latin maxim: leges posteriores priores conterarias abrogant is subject to the exception  embodied in the maxim : generalia specialibus non derogant.  in other words the theory that the later laws abrogate earlier  contrary laws  is subject to the exception that the  general law  does not  derogate from a special one and applying  the said principle the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act being  a special  Act dealing  with levy of tax on Motor Vehicles the  later  law,  namely,  the  Municipalities  Act cannot be  said to  have repealed  the earlier provisions of the Taxation  Act and  on the other hand it must be presumed that the situation was intended to continue to be dealt with by the  specific provision  contained in  the  Taxation  Act rather than  the later  general provisions  contained in the Municipalities Act  and , therefore the High Court was fully justified in  coming to  the conclusion  that the Cantonment board could  not have issued the Notification levying tax on entry on Motor Vehicles. The learned counsel also urged that the duty  of the  court being to put a construction by which both the  provisions  could  be  sustained,  the  expression ‘vehicle’ in the Municipalities Act should be interpreted to mean all  vehicles other  than Motor  Vehicles for  which  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

special provision  has been  made in the Taxation Act and so construed  the   Cantonment  Board   would  not   have   any jurisdiction to  levy  entry  tax  on  Motor  Vehicles.  The relevant Sections  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Motor  Vehicles Taxation Act may quoted hereunder :      "3.  Levy   of  Tax-  (2)  The  tax      leviable under subsection (1) shall      be paid  by the  owner of the motor      vehicle used or kept of use-      (i) for  a whole  quarter  at  one-      fourth of the annual rate specified      in the First Schedule , and for two      or more  whole quarters,  pro rata;      or      (ii) for any period expiring on the      last  day   of  quarter   and   not      exceeding two  months at  one-sixth      or   one-twelfth    of   the   rate      specified in  the  First  Schedule,      according as the period exceeds, or      does not exceed one month.      6.   Bar of  imposition of  tax  by      any      local       authority.-(1)      Notwithstanding anything  contained      in any other enactment for the time      being in  force, no local authority      shall, after  the  commencement  of      this Act, impose for enhance a tax,      toll or licence fee in respect of a      motor  vehicle  and  if  any  local      authority has imposed sch tax. toll      or licence fee since before the 1st      day of  April, 1942 and the same is      still in force all the commencement      of  this  Act  any  person  who  is      liable to  pay such  tax,  toll  or      licence fee to such authority shall      be deemed to have paid it.      (2)  Nothing   contained  in   sub-      section  (10   shall   affect   the      imposition, enhancement or recovery      of an  octroi tax  levied hereafter      by  any   local  authority   or   a      terminal tax levied and in force on      the 1st  January ,  1937 within the      local area  under the  jurisdiction      of any local authority .      (7) Grant  to local authorities-(1)      The state  Government shall  at the      close of the financial year 1947-48      and   of    each   financial   year      thereafter make to every Cantonment      Board,  Municipal   Committee   and      notified area  committee which  was      imposing a tax, toll or licence fee      in  respect   of  motor   vehicles,      before the  1st day of April, 1942,      a grant  of the  same as  was being      paid by  the  state  Government  to      such board or committee immediately      before  the  commencement  of  this      Act:      Provided  that   no  sum  shall  be      payable to cantonment Board  unless      it agrees  not to  recover any tax,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    toll or  licence fee  in respect of      motor vehicles.      (2)  Any  sum  payable  under  sub-      section (1) shall be charged on the      Consolidated Fund of the State."      The rival  submission require  careful  examination  of different provisions of both the Acts and certain principles of interpretation of a statute.      The admitted  position  that  emerges  from  the  facts already narrated  are that  the cantonment  Act, 1924 is the earliest in  point of  time which  empowered the  Cantonment Board to  impose tax  with  the  previous  sanction  of  the Central  Government  which  tax  could  be  imposed  in  any Municipality in the State where such Cantonment is situated. The Madhya  Pradesh Motor  Vehicles Taxation  Act, 1947 is a special provision  dealing with levy of tax on motor Vehicle which is  used or kept for use. There is no provision in the aforesaid Taxation Act for levy of any tax on entry of Motor Vehicles alone.  The Municipality  Act of  1961,  however  , authorises imposition  of tax on vehicles, boats and animals entering the  limits of  the  Municipality  as  provided  in Section 127  91)(iii) of  the said  Act.  In  the  aforesaid premises it  is required  to be considered and decided as to whether the  Cantonment Board  could impose  tax on vehicles entering the  limits of  the Cantonments  which  could  have otherwise been  levied by  the Municipality  in exercise  of power under  Section 127(1)(iii)  of the Municipalities Act. It may  be further  noticed that the Motor vehicles Taxation Act as  well as  the Municipalities  Act are both enacted by the State  Legislature. The  first question  that arises for consideration is whether there is any repugnancy between the provisions of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Taxation  Act  and  the Municipalities Act in relation to imposition of tax on Motor Vehicles entering  the limits  of the  Municipality. As  has been stated  earlier under  the Taxation  Act, Tax  could be imposed on  the Motor Vehicles which is used or Kept for use as provided  in Section 3(2) of the said Act and there is no provision for imposition of tax on vehicles which is neither used nor  kept for use but for mere entry into any municipal limits .  When the legislatures imposed a ban on levy of tax by any  local authority  under section 6 of the Taxation Act what is  prohibited is  levy of  tax which is leviable under section 3(2)  of the Taxation Act. When the same legislature enacted  the   Municipalities  to  impose  tax  on  vehicles entering the  limits of  the Municipality  under Section 127 (1)(iii) they must be presumed to be aware of the provisions of the Taxation Act and leviability of the tax thereunder in respect  of  Motor  Vehicles  used  or  kept  for  use.  The expression ‘vehicle’ having been defined in Section 2(38) to include a  bicycle, a  tricycle, motor  car and  ever  wheel conveyance which  is used  or capable  of being  used  on  a public street,  it is  not possible  for us  to  accept  the contention of Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents  to   interpret  the  same  expression  to  mean vehicles other than the ‘motor vehicles’. Since the Taxation Act does  not provide  for any imposition of tax on entry of the Motor  vehicles  within  Municipal  limits  whereas  the municipal  Act   authorises  fr   such  levy  under  Section 127(1)(iii) we  do not  find any inconsistency or repugnancy between the  two provisions.  In other words while under the Motor Vehicle  Taxation Act  a tax could be imposed on Motor Vehicles used  or kept  for use by the registering authority including the  Municipalities under  section 127(1)(iii)  of the Municipalities  Act. But so far as the imposition of tax motor  Vehicle   entering  into   the  Municipal  limits  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

concerned, which  is provided  under section 127(1)(iii), of the Municipalities Act the said provisions cannot be said to be repugnant  to the  special statute  in respect  of  Motor Vehicles, namely  the Motor  Vehicles Taxation  Act. It  has been stated  by this  court in  the case of Ashoka Marketing ltd. And  another etc.  etc. vs,  Punjab National  Bank  and others etc.  etc. (1990)  4 SCC  406 that  the principal  of statutory  interpretation,   namely,  later   laws  abrogate earlier contrary laws is subject to exception that a general provision does  not derogate  from a special one. This would mean that  where a  literal meaning of the general enactment covers a  situation for  which specific provision is made by another enactment  contained  in  the  earlier  Act,  it  is presumed that  the situation was intended to be continued to be dealt  with by  the specific  provision rather  than  the later general  one. in other words if the Taxation Act would have contained  a provision  authorising imposition of Entry Tax on  Motor Vehicle  than certainly the later general Act, namely the  municipalities Act even if by making a provision of imposition  of entry  tax on  Vehicles entering in to the Municipal limits  would not  have operated.  But  since  the special law,  namely, the  Taxation Act  does not  have  any provision authorising  imposition of  tax on  entry of Motor Vehicles. The said provision would remain valid and would be applicable and there would be no bar for the municipality to impose entry  tax on  all vehicles  including Motor Vehicles including Motor  Vehicles for  entering in  to the limits of the  Municipalities.   This  Construction   being  the  only harmonious construction  by which both the provisions remain operative  it   is  the   duty  of   the  court  adopt  such construction. There  is  no  dispute  with  the  proposition advanced by Mr. Lekhi, learned senior counsel with regard to theory of implied  repeal. This theory  the learned  the senior  counsel advanced since the Municipalities  Act did not repeal the provisions of the Motor Vehicles  Taxation Act.  It was  held by this Court in the Case of Yogender Pal Singh & others vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 631;      "It is  well settled  that  when  a      competent Authority makes a new law      which is  totally inconsistent with      the earlier  law and the two cannot      stand together  any longer  it must      be construed  that the  earlier law      has  been   repealed  by  necessary      implication by the later law."      In considering   the  applicability of section 6 of the General Clause  Act 1897  in the case of State Of Orissa Vs. M.A  Tuloch  and  Co.  (1964)  4  SCR  461  this  court  had observed:-      "The   entire   theory   underlying      implied repeals is that there is no      need for  the later  enactment  has      been   repealed    by   using   any      particular set  of words or form of      drafting   but    that    if    the      legislative intent to supersede the      earlier law  is manifested  by  the      enactment provisions  as to  effect      such supersession,  then  there  is      law a  repeal  notwithstanding  the      absence of  the words  ‘repeal’  in      the later statute."      The aforesaid  observation no doubt has been made while analysing the effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

and  the  continuance  of  rights  accrued  and  liabilities incurred under  the superseded  enactment and  thus  has  no direct application to the case in hand.      In the  case Commissioner  of Income Tax, Bombay City I vs. Godavari  sugar Mills Ltd. (1967) 1 SCR 798 on which Mr. Lekhi learned  senior counsel  placed strong  reliance,  the question for  consideration  was  whether  the  ordnance  be repugnant to  section 23A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 it can be said   that  there is an implied repeal of section 23A of the Act. In this connection it was held by this court:-      "there  is  a  manifest  repugnancy      between  the   provisions  of   the      Ordinance and of section 23A if the      Act and it must be taken that there      is a  implied repeal  of Section 23      of the  Act to  the Extent  of that      repugnancy created  by Section 3 of      the Ordinance  and so  long as  the      ordinance remain in force."      But  in  view  of  our  conclusion  that  there  is  no repugnancy between  Section 3  read with  Section 6  of  the Motor Vehicles  Taxation Act  and the  provisions of Section 127(1)(iii)  of   the  Municipalities   Act  and   both  the provisions operate  in two different fields the principle of implied repeal  will have  no application. In the connection it would  be appropriate  for us  to notice  one decision of this court  in the  Case of  The Western India Theatres Ltd. vs. The  Cantonment Board,  Poona, Cantonment 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 63,  where the  validity of  levy of  entertainment  tax under Entry  50 in  Schedule VII  of the Government of India Act. 1935 was under consideration. The Entry in question was to the effect:-      "taxes on luxury or entertainment or amusement"      It was  contended before  the Court  that  the  tax  in question was  really a  tax imposed  for  the  privilege  of carrying on  any  trade  or  calling  under  Entry  46  and, therefore, the  same  cannot  exceed  Rs.100  per  annum  as provided under  Section 142A  of the Government of India Act 1935 and  Rs.250 per  annum  under  Article  276(2)  of  the Constitution. The Court repelling the argument held:-      "The entry  contemplates  luxuries,      entertainment,  and  amusements  as      objects on  which the  tax is to be      imposed. If  the words are to be so      regarded, as  we think  they  must,      there   can   be   no   reason   to      differentiate between the given and      the  receiver   of  the   luxuries,      entertainment’s or  amusements  and      both may,  with equal propriety, be      made amenable  to the  tax.  It  is      true  that  economists  regards  an      entertainment, it does become a tax      on expenditure,  entertainment’s or      amusements .  The entry, as we have      said,  contemplates   a  law   with      respect to  these matters  regarded      as objects  and a law which imposes      tax on  the act  of entertaining is      within the  entry whether  it falls      on the  giver or  receiver of  that      entertainment. Nor  is the impugned      tax a tax imposed for the privilege      of  carrying   on  any   trade   or      calling."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    Thus considered,  the tax  leviable on  Motor  Vehicles when used  or kept  for use under section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor  vehicles Taxation  Act is  different from the tax leviable  on Motor  Vehicles. Entering the limits of the Municipality  under  Section  127(1)  (iii)  of  the  Madhya Pradesh  Municipalities Act, 1961 and there is no repugnancy between the  two  and  both  the  provisions  can  therefore operate in its own field. Since under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, Municipality could levy a  tax   on  Motor  Vehicles  entering  the  limits  of  the Municipality, the  same could  be levied  by the  Cantonment Board in  exercise of  its power  under Section  60   of the Cantonments Act  with the  previous sanction  of the Central Government  .  Consequently,  notifications  issued  by  the Cantonment Boards  of Mhow,  Jabalpur and Saugar  were valid notifications issued under section 60 of the cantonments Act and imposition  of tax  on motor  Vehicles entering into the limits of the Cantonment Boards cannot be said to be invalid or inoperative.  The High  court in  our  opinion  committed error in  striking down those notifications on the ground of repugnancy with    this  special  legislation,  namely,  the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.      So far   as  the contention  of Mr.  Lekhi, the learned senior counsel  with regard  to the  proviso to Section 7 of the Taxation  Act is  concerned, we however, do not find any force in the same in asmuchas Section 7 deals with the grant to the local authorities and it provides that if a grant was being paid  by the  state Government  to any  such Board  or Committee  immediately   before  the   commencement  of  the Taxation Act  then the  said grant  shall be continued to be paid. But the Cantonment Board by virtue of the Proviso will not be  entitled to  receive the said grant unless it agrees not to  recover any  tax, toll  or licence in respect of the Motor Vehicles.  In  other  words,  Section  7  and  proviso thereto deals  with right  of the  Cantonment Board  and the Municipality to  receive a grant which was being paid by the state Government  prior to  the commencement of the Taxation Act and  the said  provision  has  no  connection  with  the imposition of  tax on  Motor Vehicle  Which is  governed  by section 3  (2) and  the bar  on  such  imposition  which  is contained in  Section 6 of the Taxation Act. In this view of the matter  , we  are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the  learned senior  counsel that conjoint reading of section 6 and 7 and its proviso would lead to the conclusion that even  under the  Taxation Act  a Cantonment  Board  was entitled to  impose tax  on Motor  Vehicles used or kept for use notwithstanding the bar under Section 6.      Coming  to  the  conclusion  of  the  applicability  of doctrine of  desuetude Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation for  City of  Pune and  another vs. Bharat forge Company Ltd.  and other  (1995)3 SCC  434 and submitted that the provisions  of the  Motor Vehicles  Taxation Act must be held to be of disuse as no grant as provided in Section 7 of the Taxation  Act has  ever been  made at  any point of time after the enactment of the said Act in 1947. This contention is wholly  unsustainable in  law  in  asmuchas  we  are  not concerned with  the question  of grant  to local authorities and Cantonment  Board as  provided under  Section 7  of  the Taxation Act  but we  are concerned  with the leviability of tax on  Motor Vehicles  under Section  3(2)  of the Taxation Act. it  is nobody’s  case that  no tax  was being levied on Motor Vehicles  which is  used or kept for use under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act ,1947. That apart  to  apply  the  principle  of  desuetude  it  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

necessary to  establish that  the state in question has been in disuse  for  long  and  the  contrary  practice  of  some duration gas  evolved. In  other words to make the aforesaid principle applicable  in the  case in hand it is required to be established  that the  provisions of  Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles  Taxation Act  has been  in disuse for a long period and  that the  imposition of  tax on  entry of  Motor Vehicles into  the   Cantonment limit  has been in operation for a  fairly long  period. Neither of these two ingredients has been  satisfied in  the case  in hand  and therefore the aforesaid principle of desuetude is of no application to the case in hand.      In the  aforesaid premises,  these appeals are allowed. The impugned  judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are set aside  and it  is held  that the  respective  cantonment Boards  Pursuant   to  the   notifications  issued   by  the Cantonment Boards  in exercise  of power under Section 60 of the Cantonments  Act. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.