Judgment.- These two appeals and two revisions arise out of two orders passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam dismissing both the complaints on the ground that section 92 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Madras Act X of 1950) stood repealed by virtue of section 25(1) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. The necessary facts are that the President of the Village Panchayat Chinna gollapalem instituted two complainants under section 92 read with section 115 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to for convenience as the Panchayats Act) alleging inter alia that the accused in both the cases have constructed the factories and installed the machinery without obtaining necessary licence from the Village Panchayat. The complaints were being tried. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. In the midst of the trial, the accused filed applications in both the cases raising two preliminary objections. It was firstly contended that the complaints are time-barred under section 103 of the Panchayats Act since the complaints have been filed after three months of the commission of the offence. It was secondly contended that section 92 of the Panchayats’ Act stood repealed because of section 25(1) of the Act of 1958. These petitions were resisted by the complainant. The learned Magistrate negatived the first contention in regard to the limitation and found that the complaints are filed within time. He however accepted the other contention and held that, since section 92 of the Panchayats Act in its application to rice mills stood repealed by section 25(1) of the 1958 Act, the complaints cannot be proceeded with. It is this view of the learned Magistrate which is now challenged in these appeals and revisions. The principal contention of Shri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner, is that section 25 of the 1958 Act has nothing to do with section 92 of the Panchayats Act and that section 92 cannot, in relation to the rice mills, be deemed to have been repealed because of section 25(1). Now, section 92 of the Panchayats Act is in Chapter V which is entitled “Public Safety, Convenience and Health”. Section 92 prohibits construction or establishment of any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power without obtaining the permission of the Village Panchayat. Now, section 92 of the Panchayats Act is in Chapter V which is entitled “Public Safety, Convenience and Health”. Section 92 prohibits construction or establishment of any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power without obtaining the permission of the Village Panchayat. Similarly, it prohibits installation in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the rules without obtaining the necessary permission of the Village Panchayat. Clause (c) of section 93(1) authorises the Government to make rules prohibiting or regulating the grant of permission under section 92. It is thus clear that the purpose of section 92 is not to regulate any industry but that permission is required from the point of view of public safety, convenience and health. The Village Panchayat is more concerned with building laws and not anything in regard to the regulation of industry. The section contemplates the grant of permission if it is in accord with the rules relating to public safety, convenience and health. Whereas the aim and object of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 is to regulate the rice milling industry in the interests of the general public. Section 5 of that Act relates to the grant of a permits in respect of new or defunct rice mills. According to sub-section (3) of that section, if, on the receipt of any application mentioned in that section for the grant of a permit, the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for ensuring adequate supply of rice, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), grant the necessary permit specifying therein the period within which the mill is to be established or, as the case may be, the mill is to re-commence rice-milling operation. According to sub-section (4) of that section, before any permission is granted, various factors have to be taken into consideration such as the number of rice mills operating in the locality, the availability of paddy in the locality the availability of power and water supply for the rice mill in respect of which a permit is applied for. According to sub-section (4) of that section, before any permission is granted, various factors have to be taken into consideration such as the number of rice mills operating in the locality, the availability of paddy in the locality the availability of power and water supply for the rice mill in respect of which a permit is applied for. It is also necessary to see whether the rice mill will be of the huller type, sheller type or a combined one as well as whether the functioning of the rice mill would cause substantial unemployment in the locality and such other particulars as may be prescribed by the Central Government. A comparative reading of these provisions would reveal that the purpose of the 1958 Act is entirely different than the purpose of section 92 of the Panchayats Act, 1950. These two provisions do not occupy the same field. They operate upon altogether different fields. While the intention of section 92 is to maintain hygienic conditions and follow the building bye-laws, the purpose of the 1958 Act is to regulate the rice milling industry itself and has very little to do with the building bye-laws or the purpose behind section 92 of the Panchayats Act. What section 25(1) of the 1958 Act repeals is any law or order relating to the regulation or control of rice mills in the State. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that section 92 is an Act a law relating to the regulation of or control of rice mills in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 25(1), therefore, does not by necessary implication repeal section 92 in so far as rice-mills are concerned. The learned Magistrate went obviously wrong in treating section 92 to that extent repealed. I would, therefore, allow these appeals and revision petitions, set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate and remand the cases to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam to dispose of the cases on merits in accordance with law G.S.M. ----- Appeals and revision allowed; matter remanded.