JUDGMENT 1. IN this revision case we are concerned with the question whether in view of section 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act 1950, it is still open to the Howrah Municipality to levy any license fee under the provisions of sec. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923, as applied to Howrah for granting a license in respect of a premises to which the provisions of section 386 (1) (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act applies. The opposite party, Shalimar Wood Products Private Limited of No. I, Swarnamoyee Road within the Howrah Municipality, has its godown for storing timber at the aforesaid premises, and within the same premises wooden bobbins and other wooden articles are manufactured by the use of machinery operated by electricity. Under section 386 (1) no person shall use any premises for the purposes specified in clauses a, b, c and d of subsection (1) of that section except under and in conformity with the terms of a license granted by the Commissioners of the Municipality. Clause (a) refers to the purposes specified in Schedule XIX among which is included the purpose of using a place as a depot for wood. Clause (b) refers to any purpose which in the opinion of the Commissioners is dangerous to life health and property or likely to create a nuisance. Exhibit 13 shows that the howrah Municipality by a resolution or rather an order of the Administrator dated 18th June, 1955. adopted a list of dangerous trades for which license would be required under clause (b) oft sub-section (1) of sec. 386. Among these purposes is included manufacturing with electric power wooden bobbins or carding staves or wooden stores. Another item is any workshop run with electricity or motor power. It is, therefore, clear that under clause (b) of sub-section 1 of section 386 taken with the order of the Administrator, Ext. 13, the opposite-party is required to take out a license for the use of the premises for the manufacture of wooden bobbins and other wooden stores by means of machinery operated by electricity. Also as the same house is used as the place of storing timber or wood the opposite-party is liable to take out a license in view of clause (a) of sub-sec. 1 of section 386. Also as the same house is used as the place of storing timber or wood the opposite-party is liable to take out a license in view of clause (a) of sub-sec. 1 of section 386. Now the West Bengal Fire Services Act which came into force on 30th March, 1950 provides for licensing of warehouses for the purpose of financing Fire Brigade Services. Under the provisions of this Act any place used as a warehouse for storing combustible articles like wood has to have a license under the Act. Section 38 of the Act runs as follows :- "on the application of this Act to Calcutta or any other municipality, section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, or section 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be repealed in so far as they entitle the Corporation of Calcutta or the Commissioners of the municipality to levy fees in respect of any premises or part thereof licensed as a warehouse under this Act." 2. THE contention of the Howrah Municipality was that in so far as the premises at No. 1, Swarnamoyee Road, Howrah, is licensed under the Fire Services Act, 1950 for storing of wood and timber the Howrah Municipality can no longer ask for a license under sec. 386 (1) (a), but in so far as the premises are used for manufacture of wooden bobbins etc. with electric power the Howrah Municipality can not only ask for a license to be taken out under sec. 386 (1) (a) but also can levy fees under sub-sec. (3) of section 386 which empowers the Commissioners, to fix a scale of fees to be paid in respect of the premises licensed under sub-section (1). The defense of the opposite-party. the Shalimar Wood Products Private Limited, was that in view of the fact that the Company had taken out a license under the Fire Services Act it was no longer liable to take out any license under any of the clauses of sec. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as applied to Howrah and in any case it was not liable to pay any fee for such license. 3. THE learned Magistrate who tried the case for the failure of the opposite party to take out a license under sec 386 (1) (b) held that though in view of sec. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as applied to Howrah and in any case it was not liable to pay any fee for such license. 3. THE learned Magistrate who tried the case for the failure of the opposite party to take out a license under sec 386 (1) (b) held that though in view of sec. 38 of the Fire Services Act the Municipality could not charge fees for a license under clause (a) of sub-sec. 1 of section 386, the Municipality could still charge a fee in so far as the premises were used as a workshop and therefore came under clause (b) of sub-sec. 1 of section 386. Accordingly the learned Magistrate held the opposite party guilty and imposed a fine of Rs. 50/-In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah, took the view that while the opposite party is still liable to take out a license under section 386 (1) (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, still the Municipality cannot levy any fee for granting such a license in view of the terms of sec. 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950. In that view, while the learned Judge upheld the conviction he reduced the fine to a nominal fine of Rs. 10/- only. Against that order the Commissioners of Howrah Municipality have filed this revisional application. 4. MR. Prafulla Kumar Roy appearing for the petitioner has urged that the learned Judge was not right in the view he took and that while under the terms of sec. 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 the Municipality can no longer levy any fee in so far as the premises are used as a warehouse for storing wood and timber, section 38 of the Fire Services Act cannot prevent the Municipality from levying fees for the use of the premises as a place for manufacture of wooden bobbins, etc., by electric power, for such use comes under clause (b) of sub-sec. 1 of section 386. But sec. 1 of section 386. But sec. 38 of the Fire Services Act which has been quoted above does not merely take away the power of the Municipal Commissioners to levy fees in respect of the premises so far as it is used as a ware-house; it takes away the power to levy fees in respect of any premises or part thereof which has been licensed as a ware-house under the Fire Services Act. Accordingly, where the premises are licensed as a ware-house under the Fire Services Act but a portion of the premises is used as a workshop for the manufacture of wooden bobbins with electric power, 1 must agree with the view of the learned Judge that the Municipal Commissioners have no longer the power to levy any fees for granting a license in respect of the premises, even though the opposite party has the liability to take out such a license. In other words, while the opposite party must take out a license under section 386 (1) the opposite party cannot be charged any fee for the license by the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah. The result would be different if a part of the premises only were licensed as a warehouse and the manufacture of bobbins with electric power was carried on in a different part of the premises. In the present case, however, the entire premises have been licensed as a warehouse under the Fire Services Act. Accordingly in respect of no part of the premises the Howrah Municipality can charge fees for granting a license under sec. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 5. MR. Roy has advanced another argument, namely, that section 38 only refers to section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and section 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, and not to sec. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as applied to Howrah and that, therefore section 38 of the Fire Services Act does not apply at all to Howrah Municipality because the Howrah Municipality is governed neither by the Calcutta Municipal Act nor by the Bengal Municipal Act but by the Calcutta Municipal Act as applied to Howrah, that is the Calcutta Municipal Act modified by the Govt., in accordance with the power conferred on the Govt., by sec. 541 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 1923. 541 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 1923. This subsection confers power on the government to modify the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 in its application to Howrah. The modified provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act as applied to Howrah must, however, be considered as part of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and in respect of section 386, in any case, there is no substantial modification, the only modification being the substitution of the word "commissioners" for the word "corporation" wherever the same is used in the Calcutta Municipal Act. I must, therefore, hold that sec. 38 of the Fire Services Act applies to the Howrah Municipality also. 6. ACCORDINGLY, I hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge took a correct view of the case, namely, that though the opposite party is liable to take out a license under section 386 (l) of the Calcutta Municipal Act as applied to Howrah, the Howrah Municipality cannot levy any fees for the same and that, therefore, the offence committed by the opposite party is more or less a technical offence and the nominal fine imposed by the learned Judge is, therefore, quite proper. This Rule is accordingly discharged.