JUDGMENT - Mrs. SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Indian Oil Corporation and I.B.P. Co. Limited, who are petitioners 1 to 4 manufacture and sell inter alia, petroleum products. They also have dealers who run retail outlets in Bombay City. The retail outlets are operated by the dealers of the petitioners 1 to 4 under agreements executed by them with the petitioners concerned. This petition has been filed on behalf of the dealers of petitioners 1 to 4. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is the respondent. 2. Under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted by the Commissioner no person shall keep or suffer or allow to be kept, in or upon any premises, any article, inter alia, specified in Part II of Schedule M, in excess of the quantity, therein specified as a maximum quantity, without a licence. Petrol and High Speed diesel form part of Schedule M, Part II. As per Schedule M, Part II storage of petroleum of any quantity in excess of 10 litres requires a municipal licence, while in the case of storage of high speed diesel any quantity in excess of 20 litres requires a licence. 3. The dealers of the petitioners have been called upon by the respondents to obtain a licence under these provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in the year 1985. The present petition is for a declaration that in view of the provisions of section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and notification issued thereunder no licence is required for storage of petrol and diesel in excess of 10 litres and 20 litres respectively under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and for other consequential reliefs. 4. The Petroleum Act, 1934 was enacted by the Central Legislature. It is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the import, transport, storage, production, refining and blending of petroleum. The statement of objects and reasons states that the attention of the Government of India was drawn to the inconvenience arising from the existence, in different provinces, of separate sets of rules to regulate the importation, possession and transport of petroleum. The statement of objects and reasons states that the attention of the Government of India was drawn to the inconvenience arising from the existence, in different provinces, of separate sets of rules to regulate the importation, possession and transport of petroleum. It further sets out that in the interest of uniformality it was agreed by all Local Governments that the rule-making power in this connection should be transferred to the Central Government. 5. Under section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 it is provided as follows : "Where any enactment confers powers upon any local authority in respect of the transport or storage of petroleum, the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette--- (a) limit the operation of such enactment, or (b) restrict the exercise of such powers, in any manner it deems fit." In exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 the Central Government has issued a notification dated 4th May, 1950 under which the Central Government has limited the operation of enactments specified in the schedule annexed to the notification, in so far as the said enactments relate to the storage or transport of petroleum (other than petroleum which has its flashing point not below 200oF) to the following quantities, namely :--- "(1) In the case of dangerous petroleum (flashing point below 24.4oC or 76oF) to quantities of six gallons or less, not intended for sale and kept in securely stoppered receptacles of glass, stoneware or metal ; (2) In the case of non-dangerous petroleum having its flashing-point below 150oF., to quantities not exceeding five hundred gallons, provided none of it is contained in a receptable exceeding 200 gallons in capacity ; (3) In the case of non-dangerous petroleum having its flashing point not below 150oF., but below 200oF, to quantities not exceeding ten thousand gallons not stored in the same installation or storage shed as other petroleum and exempt from licence under the rules contended in Chapter V of the Petroleum Rules, 1937." In the schedule annexed to the notification the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is at Serial No. 4. 6. 6. In other words, as a result of this notification the operation of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is limited, in so far as it relates to storage and transport of petroleum, to quantities specified in the notification, that is to say, up to 6 gallons in the case of petrol (because its flashing point is below 76oF or 24.4oC.), and quantities not exceeding 500 gallons for High Speed diesel. High Speed diesel falls in the second category of non-dangerous petroleum since its flashing point is above 76oF, but below 150oF. the petitioners contend that by reason of section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 read with notification dated 4th May 1950 they cannot be asked by the respondents to obtain a licence under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for transport and storage of petrol and High Speed diesel as the quantities stored by the dealers exceed the quantities specified in the notification. 7. The Petroleum Act, 1934 was a law in force in the territory of India, immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Under Article 372 of the Constitutional therefore it continues to remain in force until altered or repealed or amended by competent Legislature or other competent authority. It is not the contention of the respondents that the Central Legislature had no Legislative competence to enact this law. 8. In the case of (South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and anothers)1, reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 207 the Supreme Court has observed : "The object of Article 372 is to maintain the continuity of the pre-existing laws after the Constitution came into force till they were repealed, altered or amended by a competent authority. Without the aid of such an article there would be utter confusion in the field of law. ... ... ...The article would become ineffective and purposeless if it was held that pre-constitution laws should be such as could be made by the Constitution. The words " subject to the other provisions of the Constitution" "should, therefore be given a reasonable interpretation ... ... and the expression "other" in the article can only apply to provisions other than those dealing with legislative competence. The words " subject to the other provisions of the Constitution" "should, therefore be given a reasonable interpretation ... ... and the expression "other" in the article can only apply to provisions other than those dealing with legislative competence. A pre-Constitution law made by a competent authority, though it has lost its legislative competency under the Constitution, shall continue in force, provided the law does not contravene the "other provisions" of the Constitution." The Petroleum Act, 1934 is therefore valid and operative. In any case Entry 53 in List 1, 7th Schedule which is the "Union List" gives to the Union Government, power to legislate, inter alia, on petroleum and petroleum products. The notification of 4-5-1950 is also valid. It is issued under section 31 of the Petroleum Act. 9. As against this the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is a State Act. Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was amended in 1962. Section 394 deals with licence for storage and transport of certain specified items. Since the amended provision touches upon public health, safety and local Government, it falls under List II of the 7th Schedule under Entries 1, 5 and 6. List II is the State List. There is, therefore, no dispute that both the Petroleum Act, 1934 as well as the amended section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporations Act are enacted in the valid exercise of powers by the Legislatures concerned. 10. It was submitted by Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate for the respondents that after the amendment of section 394 in 1962 the amended section 394 must prevail over the Petroleum Act of 1934. This argument must be rejected. The Petroleum Act, 1934 was a law in force at the commencement of the Constitution and it continues to be a valid one, passed by the Central Legislature. Even under the Constitution, the Central Government has legislative competence to enact such a law under Entry 53, List I of Schedule VII. The notification of 4.5.50 is issued in valid exercise of power under section 31 of the Petroleum Act. To the extent of any repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Act including its 1962 amendment, the Central Act must prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution. 11. The notification of 4.5.50 is issued in valid exercise of power under section 31 of the Petroleum Act. To the extent of any repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Act including its 1962 amendment, the Central Act must prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution. 11. In the case of (Lalji Mulji v. The State of Maharashtra)2, reported in (1965) 67 Bom.L.R. 484, a Division Bench of this High Court was required to consider the vires of section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. In that case the Municipal Corporation had required the petitioner, who was storing lubricating oil, to obtain a licence under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. This was challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that section 394 was ultra vires Article 246 read with Entries 53, 93, 95 of List I, 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. One argument which was advanced before the Division Bench was that since section 394, inter alia, regulates transport and storage of petroleum and petroleum products it impinges upon Entry 53 of List I of 7th Schedule. It is beyond the legislative competence of the State Government. In dealing with this argument the Division Bench said that one had to look to the pith and substance of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and in particular of section 394. It held that in pith and substance the impugned legislation fell within Entries 1, 5, 6 and 23(2) of List II of the Seventh Schedule because it was in essence a provision for safety and precautions to be taken to secure health and well-being of local inhabitants. The High Court said that the purpose and motivation of the Petroleum Act was different from section 394 which was for ensuring safety of persons inhabiting a crowded city. It said that there was no direct conflict between the Petroleum Act and section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 12. These observations were made in the context of considering the legislative competence of the State Government to enact section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The Division Bench however, was not required to consider on the facts before it any direct conflict between the provisions of section 394 and Notification of 5th May, 1950 issued under the Petroleum Act, 1934 because the case related to transport and storage of lubricating oil. 13. The Division Bench however, was not required to consider on the facts before it any direct conflict between the provisions of section 394 and Notification of 5th May, 1950 issued under the Petroleum Act, 1934 because the case related to transport and storage of lubricating oil. 13. Lubricating oil has a flashing point above 200oF. It is expressly excluded from the notification of 4th May, 1950. Restrictions placed inter alia, upon the operation of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act by this notification are therefore confined to those provisions of the Bombay Municipal corporation Act which regulate storage and transport of petroleum products which have a flashing point below 200oF. Before the Division Bench therefore, there was no conflict between the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Nor was it required to consider the validity or otherwise of any provisions of these Acts or the notification when they over-lapped. In fact it has said that the question of limitation of the operations of provisions in section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act by reason of the notification does not arise before it. 14. In the present case however, there is a direct conflict between the notification of 4th May, 1950 issued under the Petroleum Act of 1934 and section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act in so far as it pertains to transport and storage of petrol and High Speed diesel. The notification expressly restricts the operation of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in so far as it regulates storage and transport of petrol and High Speed diesel to quantities mentioned in the notification. It necessarily thereby excludes the operation of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in so far as it applies to transport and storage of High Speed diesel in quantities above the limit prescribed by the notification. 15. It was submitted by Mr. Singhvi learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no conflict between the Petroleum Act, 1934 and section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 because they operate in different areas and their purpose is different. But the observations of the Division Bench to this effect were in the context of legislative competence to enact the two laws. Singhvi learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no conflict between the Petroleum Act, 1934 and section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 because they operate in different areas and their purpose is different. But the observations of the Division Bench to this effect were in the context of legislative competence to enact the two laws. It would not for example, be correct to say that the Petroleum Act, 1934 is not concerned at all with safety of people or safe storage of petroleum and petroleum products; or that these are the exclusive concern of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. In fact the rules which have been framed under the Petroleum Act, 1934 make extensive provisions relating to manner of transportation and storage with a view to ensure safety of the public and prevent fires and explosions. The Rules do not merely prescribe safety measures. They lay down details about the nature of electric installation in refineries, storage sheds, service stations and places where petroleum is loaded and unloaded so as to prevent fire hazard. The Rules also specify nature of storage facilities in detail and have detailed provisions relating to grant of licences under the Rules for the purpose, inter alia, of transportation and storage. 16. Of course, the Petroleum Act, 1934 is concerned exclusively with import, transportation, storage, protection, refining and blending of petroleum and petroleum products. Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is much wider in its application and it covers a number of hazardous substances for the storage and transport of which licences are required. Petrol and High Speed diesel are two such substances. Nevertheless, both these provisions, in so far as they deal with Petrol and High Speed Diesel, overlap. When a Central Act and a State Act thus overlap on some points, one has to consider whether there is any conflict between the overlapping provisions or both can co-exist. 17. In the present case the Central Legislation quite clearly provides that the Central Government has power to limit the powers of local authorities relating to transport or storage of petroleum and petroleum products. The power of the Bombay Municipal Corporations expressly limited in this area by virtue of the notification issued under section 31 of Petroleum Act, 1934. There is no way, therefore, of looking both these provisions as supplementary. The power of the Bombay Municipal Corporations expressly limited in this area by virtue of the notification issued under section 31 of Petroleum Act, 1934. There is no way, therefore, of looking both these provisions as supplementary. The notification restricts the power of the Bombay Municipal Corporation in relation to transport and storage of petroleum and its products to state quantities. 18. It is true that section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 read with notification of 4th May, 1950 does not cover the entire area of storage and transport of all kinds of petroleum products. It governs only certain kinds of petroleum products and certain quantities of such products. But in respect of the products and qualities which are so covered the power of the Bombay Municipal Corporation under section 394 is clearly restricted by reason of the notification. This was not the case before the Division Bench. In the present case the two provisions are overlapping and conflicting. They cannot therefore co-exist. It would not therefore be correct to say that licences for storage of petrol and High Speed diesel should be obtained both under the Petroleum Act and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 19. My attention was drawn to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (Caltex India Ltd. v. The Director, West Bengal Fire Services and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1960 (Cal.) 219. In that case the West Bengal legislature enacted Fire Services Act of 1950. Under this Act a licence was required from the Director, West Bengal Fire Services for storage of petroleum. It was contended before the Calcutta High Court that in view of the Petroleum Act 1934 only a licence under the rules framed by the Petroleum Act was necessary and it was not open to the West Bengal Government to prescribe that a licence should also be obtained from the Director, West Bengal Fire Services. Calcutta High Court negatived this contention. It held that the West Bengal Act served a different purpose and its subject matter was not the same as the Petroleum Act. The West Bengal Act was within the legislative competence of the State Government. Even if the said State Act made an incidental encroachment upon the Central Act, it was not thereby rendered invalid. Therefore licence for storage of petroleum were required under both the Acts. The West Bengal Act was within the legislative competence of the State Government. Even if the said State Act made an incidental encroachment upon the Central Act, it was not thereby rendered invalid. Therefore licence for storage of petroleum were required under both the Acts. In these case before the Calcutta High Court there was no question of any direct conflict between the two Acts. There was no notification under section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 curtailing the Fire Services Act. Hence the Calcutta High Court held that even if some provisions of the Petroleum Act and the West Bengal Fire Services Act overlapped, there was no repugnancy between the two Acts. 20. In the present case the Petroleum Act has restricted the power of the local authority to regulate transportation and storage of certain kinds of petroleum products and certain quantities of such products as set out earlier. There is therefore, a direct abridgement of the powers of the local authority by the notification. Hence the notification issued under section 31 of the Petroleum Act has an over-riding effect. 21. The petition is, therefore, allowed. It is declared that no licence is required under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for storage of (i) petroleum products having a flashing point below 24.4oC or 76oF in quantities exceeding 6 gallons and (ii) for storage of non-dangerous petroleum having its flashing-point below 150oF., for quantities exceeding 500 gallons. The respondents are restrained from asking the dealers of the said products to take out a licence under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for the storage of petrol and high speed diesel in quantities exceeding 6 gallons and 500 gallons respectively and are directed to forbear from taking any action against the dealers of petitioners 1 to 4 in such cases. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----