JUDGMENT : - P.K. Samanta, J.: A very interesting question as to the validity of the resolution dated 11.7.94 taken in a special meeting of Budge Budge Municipality revising monthly rates for supply of water to the holdings used for non-domestic purposes in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 301 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter called as Act of 1932) after repeal of the said Act of 1932 by West Bengal Municipal Act of 1993 arises for consideration in this writ petition. In particular the point involved for decision is that the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter called as Act of 1993) having repealed the Act of 1932 and further having provided that the scale of fees for supply of water for non-domestic uses shall be prescribed by rules made under the Act of 1993, whether the resolution so adopted revising the rates for supply of water for non-domestic purposes would be saved by the saving clause incorporated in clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 441 of the Act of 1993. 2. The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 came into force with effect from 13.7.94. On 11.7.94 the Commissioner of Respondent/Municipality by a resolution in a special meeting revised the monthly rates for supply of water to the holdings for non-domestic purposes as mentioned in the said resolution. The petitioner was accordingly asked to deposit the rates as per the said revision even after the enforcement of the said Act of 1993. Though in the said resolution dated 11.7.94 regulation No.6 of the Budge Budge Municipality (levy of monthly rate for supply of water for non-domestic purposes) Regulation 1991 was mentioned but in course of hearing of this writ petition the Respondent/Municipality did not disclose any such regulation either prescribing or revising the rates for such supply of water. On the other hand, the said resolution of the Commissioner dated 11.7.94 was relied on in support of the demand made for arrears and current water rates. The absence of any such regulations in this regard is presumable because of the aforesaid resolution by the Commissioners of the Respondent/Municipality revising the rates for supply of water to the holding used for non-domestic purposes in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 301 of the Act of 1932 which reads as under ;- Section 301 ;- 1. The absence of any such regulations in this regard is presumable because of the aforesaid resolution by the Commissioners of the Respondent/Municipality revising the rates for supply of water to the holding used for non-domestic purposes in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 301 of the Act of 1932 which reads as under ;- Section 301 ;- 1. The Commissioner at a meeting may supply and may at any time after giving reasonable notice ceased to supply water for purposes other than domestic purposes. 2. For all water supplied under sub-section (1) payments shall be made at such rates and on such conditions as the commissioner at a meeting may from time to time prescribed. 3. No person shall without written permission of the Commissioner, use, for other than domestic purposes, water supplied under this chapter for domestic purposes. 3. That the Chapter VIII of the Act of 1932 which dealt with water supply, lighting, drainage and sewerage system did not provide for framing of Regulations either by the State Government or by the Commissioners of the Municipality. On the relevant date the rule making power as provided to the State Government under section 311 of the Act, 1932 did not include the subject matter relating to the rates at which the supply of water for non-domestic purposes could be charged by the Municipality. Accordingly such rates were revised at a meeting as above on 11.7.94 in exercise of the power under sub-Section (2) of section 301 of the said Act of 1932. 4. In these state of things said Act of 1993 came into force with effect from 13.7.94. Sub-section (47) of section 2 of the Act of 1993 defined the word 'prescribed' as prescribed by rules made under this Act. Section 226 of the Act of 1993, provided as under ;- The Municipality to provide water supply.- (1) It shall be the duty of every Municipality to provide a supply of wholesome water for the domestic use of the inhabitants. (2) The water for Domestic uses in excess of such standard as may be determind by the Board of Councillors and the supply of water for non-domestic uses may be charged for at such scale of fees or price as may be prescribed. (2) The water for Domestic uses in excess of such standard as may be determind by the Board of Councillors and the supply of water for non-domestic uses may be charged for at such scale of fees or price as may be prescribed. (3) The Board of Councillors, for the purpose of measuring or recording the quantity of water consumed, may provide for devices of attachment of meter in the premises or adopt a system of calculation by the size or number of ferrules through which the supply is made or any other method of measurement or recording in such manner and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. Again section 243 of the Act of 1993 empowered the State Government to make rules and clause (k) of said section made provision for the rates at which the charges for water supplied in excess of the prescribed quota for domestic purposes and for water supplied for various non-domestic purposes may be levied by the Board of Councillors and the use, maintenance and testing of meters and ferrules. Thus, upon conjoint reading of sections 2(47), 226 and 243(k) of the said Act of 1993 it is apparent that the supply of water for non-domestic uses may be charged for by the Board of Councillors of a Municipality at the rates as may be prescribed by rules framed by the State Government and not otherwise. Section 417 of the Act of 1993 provided for laying of the rules framed by the State Government before the State Legislature and saving of the rules made under Act of 1932. The said section reads as under :- Power to make rules. (1) The State Government may, after previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters which under any provision of this Act are required to be prescribed or to be provided for by' rules. (3) All rules made under this Act shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before the State Legislature as soon as possible after they are made and shall be subject to such modification as the State Legislature may make during the session in which they are so laid. (3) All rules made under this Act shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before the State Legislature as soon as possible after they are made and shall be subject to such modification as the State Legislature may make during the session in which they are so laid. Any modification of the said rules made by the State Legislature shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall, unless some later date is appointed by the State Govt., come into force on the date of such publication. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), and subsection (2) of this section or elsewhere in this Act, till such time as the State Government makes rules under this Act, the rules made under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (Ben. Act XV of 1932), and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be the rules made under this Act and the provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to any rules deemed under this sub-section (1) to be the rules made under this Act. 5. Chapter XV of the said Act of 1993 dealt with water supply and section 244 appearing in the said Chapter empowered the Board of Councillors to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under for carrying out the purposes of this Chapter. 6. Again section 419 of the said Act of 1993 empowered the Board of Councillors to make regulations for discharging its functions under this Act after previous publication and similarly provided for saving of the regulations made under the Act of 1932 which reads as under :- Power to make regulations.-(l) The Board of Councillors may, after previous publication, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under for discharging its functions under this Act. (2) The draft of regulations shall be published in the manner prescribed and shall not be proceeded with until after the expiration of a period of one month from the date of such publication or such longer period as the Board of Councillors may appoint. (2) The draft of regulations shall be published in the manner prescribed and shall not be proceeded with until after the expiration of a period of one month from the date of such publication or such longer period as the Board of Councillors may appoint. (3) Notwithstanding anything' contained in sub-section (1) or this section or elsewhere in this Act, till such time as the Board of Councillors makes regulations under this Act, the regulations made under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under, be deemed to be the regulations made under this Act, and the provisions of subsection (2) of this section or section 420 shall not apply to any regulations deemed under this sub-section to be the regulations made under this Act : Provided that the provisions of section 421 shall apply to any regulations deemed under this sub-section to be the regulations made under this Act. Explanation.-"Regulation" shall' include by law. 7. Further section 420 of the said Act of 1993 provided that regulations made by the Board of Councillors under this Act shall have any validity unless it is approved by the State Government. 8. All these provisions prescribed the procedure, the manner and the purposes for which the rules and the regulations may be framed and to make them operative in law. It is not the case of the Respondent Municipality that either the rules or the regulations were framed in compliance with the aforesaid provisions of Act of 1993 for the purpose of fixing rates for supply of water for non-domestic uses. In such circumstances the said resolution dated 11.7.94 of the Commissioners of the Respondent Municipality whether would be saved by the provisions of sub-section (2)(e) of section 441 of the said Act of 1993. The said provision is reproduced hereunder : (1) With effect from the date of commencement of this Act, the Bengal Municipal, Act, 1932 shall stand repealed. In such circumstances the said resolution dated 11.7.94 of the Commissioners of the Respondent Municipality whether would be saved by the provisions of sub-section (2)(e) of section 441 of the said Act of 1993. The said provision is reproduced hereunder : (1) With effect from the date of commencement of this Act, the Bengal Municipal, Act, 1932 shall stand repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal every Municipality and every notified area authority, constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall at the date of commencement of this Act, be deemed to have been constituted under this Act, and, in respect of such Municipality or notified area authority- * * * * * * * * * * Clause (e). every resolution adopted, order passed, budget passed, loan taken, assessment made, building plan sanctioned, licence or permission or sanction or granted or issued or any other similar action taken under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (Bengal Act XV of 1932), and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been adopted,. passed, taken, made, sanctioned, granted or issued under this Act and shall, unless altered, modified, cancelled, suspended or withdrawn, as the case may be, under this Act, remain in force for the period, if any, for which was so adopted, passed, taken, made, sanctioned, granted or issued. 9. The Act of 1993 provided for imposition of rates for supply of water both for domestic and non-domestic purposes as may be prescribed by rules or at best by regulations framed in accordance with the Act of 1993. Thus, apparently the Act of 1993 did not provide for imposition of rates without the authority of any rules and/or regulations framed under the aforesaid Act. Though sub-section (2)(e) of section 441 provided for saving of every resolution adopted under the Act of 1932 and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1993 but it was seriously contended that in view of the affirmative provisions of sub-section (47) of section 2 and section 226 read with section 243(h) of the Act of 1993 the said resolution stood implidely repealed. 10. Thus, this difficult question whether the relevant provisions of the two statutes in this regard are actually or only apparently in-consistent with one another or are contrary in matter so that the later abrogates the former. 10. Thus, this difficult question whether the relevant provisions of the two statutes in this regard are actually or only apparently in-consistent with one another or are contrary in matter so that the later abrogates the former. To determine whether the Act of 1993 repealed by implication the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 301 of Act of 1932 it is necessary to scrutinise the terms of two enactments and consider the true meaning and effect of the later Act upon the earlier and to ascertain whether any inconsistency exists between two enactments. Whether the affirmative words in later Act are such as necessarily import a contradiction on the subject matter dealt with by the earlier Act. In other words, if the repugnancy between the provisions of the two statutes dealing with the same subject matter is to such an extent that both cannot stand together then the later will have the effect of implidely repealing the other. 11. The Act of 1932 affirmatively empowered the Board of Councillors to impose rates for supply of water for non-domestic purposes by resolution and at the same time Act of 1993 saved all such resolutions while the provisions made in the Act of 1993 affirmatively laid down that no such rates shall be imposed without the authority of rules and regulations framed under the said Act. Thus, though provisions were made for framing rules and/or regulations for prescribing rates for supply of water for non-domestic purposes but it was clearly intended to preserve the resolution, if any, taken by the Board of Councillors for such purposes. Both the Acts of 1932 and 1993 created an obligation for payment of rates for supply of water for non-domestic purposes. While the rates could be fixed by resolution of the Board of Councillors under the Act of 1932 the same are required to be fixed, under the Act of 1993 under the rule making power of the State Government. The two statutes are therefore not actually inconsistent with one another so far as the liability to make payment for supply of water for non-domestic purposes• is concerned. Two different procedures have been laid down in the two statutes, for the purpose of fixing rates for such supply of water. The two statutes are therefore not actually inconsistent with one another so far as the liability to make payment for supply of water for non-domestic purposes• is concerned. Two different procedures have been laid down in the two statutes, for the purpose of fixing rates for such supply of water. Thus while the Act of 1993 laid down that such rates may be prescribed by the State Government in exercise of its rule making power but at the same time provided for saving of the resolution by the Board of Councillors fixing such rates under sub-section (2)(e) of section 441 of the Act of 1993. It could therefore be said to be a mere accidental inconsistency between two statutes so far as it relates to the rates at which supply of water for non-domestic purposes should be charged. It is not a clear and simple case of contrariety between statutes as observed in Craies on Statute Law (7th Edition) at page 372 that the rule that when two statutes, although both are expressed in affirmative language are contrary in matter the later abrogates the former is often difficult to apply because the question always arises whether the two statutes are actually or only apparently inconsistent with one another. It was quoted therein as under : "I do not think," said Grove J., in Hill vs. Hall, that a mere accidental inconsistence between two statutes amounts to a total repeal of the earlier such a doctrine might be pushed to a mischievous extent. "What words," said Dr. Lushington in "The India", "will establish a repeal by implication it is impossible to say from authority or decided cases. If, on the one hand, the general presumption must be against such a repeal, on the ground that the intention to repeal, if any, had existed, would have been declared in express terms, so, on the other hand, it is not necessary that any express reference be made to the statute which it is intended to repeal. The prior statute would, I conceive, be repealed by implication if its provisions were wholly incompatible with a subsequent one; or if the two statutes together would lead to wholly absurd consequences; or if the entire subject matter were taken away by the subsequent statute. The prior statute would, I conceive, be repealed by implication if its provisions were wholly incompatible with a subsequent one; or if the two statutes together would lead to wholly absurd consequences; or if the entire subject matter were taken away by the subsequent statute. Perhaps the most difficult case for consideration is where the subject matter has been so .dealt within subsequent statutes that, according to all ordinary reasoning, the particular provisions in the prior statutes could not have been intended to subsist, and yet, if it were left subsisting, no palpable absurdity would have been occasioned,". It must therefore always be a question for the court to decide whether this second rule as to intention is applicable or not, and in coming to a decision on this point, repeal by implication is never to be favoured. "We ought not to hold a sufficient Act repealed, not expressly as it might have been but by implication, without some strong reasons." 12. In this particular case if it is held in favour of the rule that the two statutes of 1932 and 1993 are contrary in matter relating to imposition of rates for supply of water for non-domestic purposes and therefore the Act of 1993 abrogates the Act of 1932 then it will occasion a situation where no rate for supply of water for non-domestic purposes could be charged by the Respdt./Municipality till the rules and regulations are framed in accordance with the provisions made therein even though the Act of 1993 clearly intended for payments of water rates and an absurd situation will arise even upon enforcement of the Act of 1993. But such an absurd situation will not be allowed to arise if the resolution is validated by applying the provisions of sub-section (2)(e) of section 441 of the Act of 1993. On the other hand, upon framing of the concerned rules and/ or regulations for imposition of rates for supply of water for non-domestic purposes under the aforesaid provisions of Act of 1993 if it appears that the rates so realised under the resolution taken under repealed Act of 1932 were different than what are prescribed under the Act of 1993 then the same could always be adjusted against future payments and/or recovered further, as the case may be. Accordingly, it will not occasion any absurd situation if the resolution taken by the Commissioners of the Respondent/ Municipality on 11.7.94 is allowed to subsist. 13. In all these views, I hold against the contention that the resolution dated 11.7.94 by the Commissioner stood implidely repealed by the Act of 1993. I hold so as it is further observed in Craies on Statute Law at the same page as under :- "However, every Act must be considered with reference to the State of the Law when it came into operation. Every Act is made either for the purpose of making a change in the law or for the purpose of better declaring law and its operation is not to be impeded by the same fact that it is inconsistent with some previous enactments." 14. This writ petition accordingly shall stand dismissed. Interim orders are therefore vacated. This order will also dispose of writ petition No. 2948 (W) of 1997 between the same parties. Writ petitions dismissed.