JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - Praying for direction to State Government to co-opt four elected members of Puri Municipality, the Puri Municipal Council has filed this writ application with the following averments: 2. Puri is a place of pilgrimage and pilgrims from all over India and outside visit Puri for Darsan of Lord Jagannath. The Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 enacted as Act II of 1920 is applicable to Puri. u/s 20 Clause (1) of the said Act, in every area to which this Act applies, there shall be constituted a fund, to be called as "Lodging-house Fund" (herein-after referred to as 'the Fund'). Sub-section (2) of Section 20 empowers the Government tu appoint any person or a Committee to collect and deal with 'the fund'. According to the proviso to Sub-section (2) any area where the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 is in force, 'the fund' shall be administered by a committee, of which at least one third of the total members are to be elected by the Commissioner of the Municipality for that area and the next shall be elected or nominated in such manner prescribed by the Government. It is asserted, relying on records available in the Municipal office, that Government of Orissa in Urban Development Department, Bhubaneswar had constituted the "Lodging-house Fund' Committee" vide notification No. 29416/UD dated 21-10-1972 and to that Committee Puri Municipal Council by its resolution dated 18-8-1973 had sent the names of four elected Councillors, then continuing in office, to be the members of the Lodging-house Fund Committee which were accepted by the Government. In the year 1974, the Municipal Council was superseded subsequently in the year 1985 the Puri Municipal Council was reconstituted consisting of its elected representatives. On 28-1-1986 the Municipal Council had sent names of four elected representatives to be the members of Lodging-house Fund Committee. The Executive Officer of the Petitioner in his letter No. 710 had requested the Government of Orissa in the Urban Development Department for appointing the elected representatives of the Municipal Council as members of Lodging -house Committee and get the said appointments notified in the official Gazette as required under the provision of Bihar and Orissa places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920. The inaction on the part of the Government to accept the elected members as the members of the "Lodging house Fund" Committee has forced the Petitioner to file the writ application to ventilate the its grievances with the prayer to issue mandate to the Government of Orissa in the Department of Housing and Urban Development to appoint the four elected members of the Municipal Council as the members of the "Lodging-house Fund Committee", Puri and to get their appointments notified in the official Gazette as required under the provisions of the Act. 3. The State of Orissa, opp. party No. 1 in its counter affidavit, has taken the stand that the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 was repealed by the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922. Subsequently, Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 repealed the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922. Thus, according to opp. party No. 1, the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 is not in force in Orissa. Since the proviso is applicable to the places to which Bengal Municipal Act applies, the same is in-applicable to Orissa, more so to Puri and the State Government is not bound by Jaw to appoint one-third of the total members of the Committee from out of the elected Councillors of the Puri Municipality. It is further asserted that acceptance of four members, of the Municipal Council on 5-10-1974 in the Committee does not create any right in the Petitioner. In the notification dated 4-8-1987 the State Government have reconstituted the said Lodging-house Fund Committee but none of the four elected members were taken, as the Committee members as the State Government was not bound to take them. 4. The advocate for the Petitioner, relying on Section 8 of the Orissa General Clauses Act submits that since Bengal Municipal Act, 3/1884 was repealed by the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 which was again repealed by Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 the proviso will be applicable to an area, where Orissa Municipal Act is in force. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, submits that the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 is not in force in the State of Orissa and by invoking the provisions of Section 8 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, it cannot be construed that the proviso is also applicable to an area where the Orissa Municipal Act is in force. 6. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be decided as to whether while constituting the "Lodging-house Fund Committee" the Government is bound to co-opt one-third members of the Committee from the elected members of the Puri Municipal Council. 7. Section 20 Sub-section (2) and proviso of Bihar and Orissa places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 reads as follows: (2) The Provincial Government may appoint any person or a committee to administer, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Lodging-house Fund constituted for any area: Provided that in any area where the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 (Bengal Act III of 1884) is in force, the fund shall be administered by a committee, at least one-third of whose number shall be elected by the commissioners of the municipality for that area and the remainder shall be elected or nominated in such manner as the Provincial Government may prescribe. Section 8 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 reads as follows: 8. Construction of reference to repeal enactments. Where any Orissa Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision or a former enactment, references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted. In National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Vs. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. (J. and P. Coats Ltd., Assignee) it was observed that the cannon of construction of statutes enunciated in Section 38 of the Interpretation Act and reiterated with some modifications in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is one of the general application where statutes or Acts have to be construed and there is no reasonable ground for holding that the rule of construction should not be applied in construing the Charters of the different High Courts. These Charters were granted under statutory powers and are subject to the legislative powers of the Indian Legislature. It was further observed that the provisions of the Interpretation Act and the General Clauses Act even if assuming do not, for any reason, apply, there is no justification for holding that the principles of construction enunciated in those provisions have no application for construing these Charters. In U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act (22 of 1947) reference in definition is there to Factories Act, 1934 which was repealed and re-enacted by Factories Act, 1948. In U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act (22 of 1947) reference in definition is there to Factories Act, 1934 which was repealed and re-enacted by Factories Act, 1948. The question which came up for consideration in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M.P. Singh, S.P. Sabharwal and R.K. Lahri, ) as to whether while interpreting the definition of in U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 22 of 1947 whether Factories Act, 1934 or the Factories Act, 1948 is to be referred, and their Lordships have decided that by the definition of a Commercial Establishment in Section 2(3) of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947, the clerical and other establishments of a Factory to whom the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934, did not apply, were included in the connotation of that expression. The reference in the definition by which Clerical and other establishments of Factories were included, was to the Factories Act of 1934, but by virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act. the Factories Act, 1948, must be read in place of Factories Act, 1934, as the Act of 1934, was repealed and re-enacted by the Act of 1948. In Bhagat Ram Baika Vs. Prabirendra Mohan Tagore and Others, ), it was held that the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, has been repealed and re-enacted as the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951, reference to the definition of "Calcutta", given in Section 1(2)(a), West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1923, must now be construed as a definition in terms of that given by the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951. In Sukh Dev Sarup Gupta Vs. Punjab State and Others, ), it has been held that prior to the coming into force of the Constitution of India u/s 3(6)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act any medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol fell within the definition of excisable articles which were subject to the excise duty under that Act. Later on, the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, came into force in 1948, and it levied sales taxon sale of goods except articles which were exempted u/s 6 from such tax and these articles were given in schedule B, to the Sales Tax Act. Entry 37 of that Schedule was in these words "all goods on which duty is or may be levied under the Punjab Excise Act. 1914". Entry 37 of that Schedule was in these words "all goods on which duty is or may be levied under the Punjab Excise Act. 1914". As medicinal or toilets preparations containing alcohol were subject to excise duty under the Punjab Excise Act, the same were exempted from the sales tax. After the Constitution of India came into force alcohol preparations were included in the Union list. Consequently Section 3(6)(e) of the Punjab Excise Act stood omitted by Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. Although under Article 277 of the Constitution excise duty on alcohol preparations became an Union subject, yet the State Government continued to levy the excise duty after 26th January, 1950. In 1955 the Central Government passed Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act dealing with the subject of imposition of excise duty on those alcohol preparation. It was contended before his lordship that by virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act as the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act repeals and re-enacts a provision of Punjab Excise Act so far as it relates to alcoholic preparations, reference in the Sales Tax Act to the provisions of Punjab Excise Act so repealed have to be construed as reference to the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, his lordship held that by virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, in Entry 37 in the schedule to the Sales Tax Act, so far as Section 3(6)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act was concerned, reference to Punjab Excise Act must be taken to be a reference to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act. This decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge was challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal and was affirmed by the Division Deneh which is reported in Punjab State and Others Vs. Sukh Dev Sarup Gupta. The State Government being aggrieved, carried appeal to the Supreme Court. The view taken by the Single Judge affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1970 S.C.D. 849 State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sukh Dev Sarup Gupta). In the first proviso of Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of CPC (1908) reference had been made to Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The question which arose for consideration in Narayan Misra Vs. v. Sukh Dev Sarup Gupta). In the first proviso of Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of CPC (1908) reference had been made to Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The question which arose for consideration in Narayan Misra Vs. Surendranath Das and Others, ), was as to whether while construing the provisions 01 Order 39, Rule 1, CPC the reference to Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Their lordships after considering the various provisions have observed as follows: The first question does not present any difficulty. By virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the reference to Section 56 of the old Act in the first proviso to Order 39, Rule 1, CPC must be construed as a reference to Section 41 of the new Act which repealed the earlier Act and re-enacted it, Section 8 of the General Clauses Act so far as is material runs thus: 8. Construction of reference to repealed enactments-(1) Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall unless a different Intention appears, be construed as reference to the provisions so re-enacted. x x x It does not matter that the new Act was not a repealing and amending Act, but an Act to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief. Section 8 of the General Clauses Act does not require that the latter Act repealing and re-enacting an earlier Act should be a repealing and amending Act. All that it requires that a Central Act should repeal and re-enact a former enactment either with modification or without it. Section 56 of the old Act with slight modifications had been enacted as Section 41 of the new Act. Therefore, any reference to Section 56 of the old Act in Order 39, Rule 1, CPC (as amended in Orissa) must be construed as reference to Section 41 of the new Act (See State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M.P. Singh, S.P. Sabharwal and R.K. Lahri, ). 8. Therefore, any reference to Section 56 of the old Act in Order 39, Rule 1, CPC (as amended in Orissa) must be construed as reference to Section 41 of the new Act (See State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M.P. Singh, S.P. Sabharwal and R.K. Lahri, ). 8. It is not disputed before us that the Orissa Municipal Act had repealed the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act and Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act had, in turn, repealed Bengal Municipal Act. Before Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act came into force Bengal Municipal Act was applicable to Orissa. The scope of Section 8 of the Central General Clauses Act and the scope of Section 8 of the Orissa General Clauses Act are pari materia same. The decisions which have interpreted Section 8 of the Central General Clauses Act, in our opinion will be applicable while deciding the scope and applicability of Section 8 of the Orissa General Clauses Act. In the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 in the proviso reference has been made to Bengal Municipal Act. In our opinion, the reference in the provisio to Bengal Municipal Act by virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 must be read in place of Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 as the Bengal Municipal Act was repealed by the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act and which was repealed by Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. 9. On a plain reading of Section 20(2) and its proviso of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920, it is crystal clear that the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, have not been incorporated as an integral part of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act. Consequently by application of Section 8(1) of the Orissa General Clauses Act, in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, the "Orissa Municipal Act" can be read in place of the "Bengal Municipal Act, 1884". The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 contained only a reference to the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act. Where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeat of the first statute does not affect the second. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 contained only a reference to the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act. Where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeat of the first statute does not affect the second. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act did not bodily lift certain provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act and incorporate them as an integral part of the Act. It merely made a reference to the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act and, therefore, the said Act being repealed by Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act which was again repealed by the Orissa Municipal Act, there is no difficulty in applying the provisions of the Orissa General Clauses Act and in holding that in place of the "Bengal Municipal Act" in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, the "Orissa Municipal Act" can be read. 10. In view of our conclusion aforesaid, we direct the State Government to appoint the four elected representatives of the Municipal Council as members of Lodging-house Fund", Puri and notify the same in the official Gazette as required under the provision of Section 20 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 within two months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.