FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The petitioners are owners of cinemas situate within the territorial jurisdiction of Karachi & Malir Cantonments. Each of them possess the requisite performance licenses issued by the Cantonments Act, 1924. The petitioners challenge the power and authority of the Provincial Government and the District Magistrate to require the petitioners to obtain Annual Performance Licence for their cinemas under Cinematograph Pict, 1918 and the Rules framed thereunder on the ground that the exclusive right and jurisdiction to grant cinema licences to the cinemas situated in the Cantonment areas is that of the Cantonment Board under section 124 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.
2. The two contentions raised by Mr. Muhammad Arif, the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case were that under Article 142 read with item 2 of the Federal Legislative List. Part I, Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of toe Islamic Republic of Pakistan only the Federal Legislature has and the Province has not the power to make laws over the Cantonment areas and in the alternative Cinematograph Act, 1918 in so far as it requires the cinemas situate in Cantonment areas to obtain a lice-not e for exhibition of films stands impliedly repealed by section 124 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.
3. The first contention of the learned counsel need not detain us for this question stands resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Original Civil Suit Nor. 1 of 1958. In that case the question was whether a tax imposed by the Provincial Legislature can be levied on lands and buildings situate in Cantonment areas and among other things the contention which was repelled was that a Cantonment area is not to be included within the territorial limits of a province in which it is situated. The relevant paragraph in the Supreme Court judgment reported in Pakistan v.
Province of Punjab and others PLD1975SC37 reads as follows :- "According to the Interim Constitution of k972 and the permanent Constitution of 1973, the legislative field covers only local self Government In such area the constitution and powers within such areas of cantonment authorities, the regulation of housing accommoda--petition in such areas and the delimitation of such areas. Under the 1956 Constitution also, the Federal Legislature had power to legislate with regard to 'delimitation of Cantonment areas ; local self-Government in Cantonment areas 1 constitution, powers and functions within such areas, of cantonment authorities 3 control of house accommodation (including control of rents) in such areas'. Under the 1935 Act, the power given to the Federal Legislature was to legislate for 'Local Self Government in Cantonment areas, the constitution au d powers within such areas, and the delimitation of such areas"
"(a) Cantonment areas, including-
(i) the delimitation of such areas
(ii) local self-Government in such areas, the constitution of local authorities for such areas and the functions and powers of such authorities and
(III) the control of housing accommodation (including control of rents) in such areas."
Nevertheless, if we read the legislative lists in the manner that they should be read, namely, that if there is a specific provision for a special subject in a particular item of a particular list, then that subject falls within that item of the said list and not under any general item. Since taxation on lands and buildings is specifically mentioned in the Provincial Legislative List as a separate item of legislation, legislation in respect of taxes on lands and buildings comes within the competence of the Provincial Legislature and the law so made would apply in any part of the province making the law, unless the area sought to be excluded has been specifically exempted under the law or under any constitutional provision. I have not Bern able to discover anything in any constitution or any law to show that s cantonment area is not to lie included within the territorial limits of a province in which it is situated. In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the claim of the Central Government that all lands and buildings included !n the Cantonment area are exempt from payment of the Urban Immovable property tax imposed by the Provincial Legislatures of the Provinces of Pakistan is not tenable."
4. Coming to the second contention of the learned counsel we must not lose sight of statutes that Implied repeals is not favoured by Courts. II is to be presumed that the Legislature does not intend to have on the statute book conflicting or contradictory statutes or, the same subject. The endeavour should be to give effect to all laws on the statute book. Every effort, therefore, must be made by Courts to reconcile the statutes. The conflict between the two statutes may only be apparent and not real. They may be in fact parallel statutes operating in different fields or even if the subject is the same one may be more extensive in scope than the other. Occasion for implied repeal would only arise if the two statutes cannot at all coexist, when existence of one will make redundant the other. When we examine the two statutes in the present case, namely, Cinematograph Act, 1918 and suction 124 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 we find that there is in fact no repugnancy between the two. Cinematograph Act, 1918 extends to whole of Pakistan and according to its preamble, the wide object is "regulating exhibitions by means of cinematograph".
Its section 3 provides that no person shall give an exhibition by means of a Cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act or otherwise Then is compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. The Licensing Authority under section 4 of the Act is the District Magistrate who under section 5 shall not grant a licence unless satisfied that the rules made under the Act have been substantially complied with and adequate precautions have been taken in the place in respect of which the licence is to tie given to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibitions therein. Under such section (2) of section 5 a condition is to be inserted in every licence that the licensee will not exhibit or permit to be exhibited, in such place any film other than a film which has been certified as suitable for public exhibition by an authority constituted under the Censorship Act, 1962. Under section 8 of the Act the Provincial Government is empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act arid under its sub--section (4) all rules made under the but shall be published in the official Gazette and on such publication shall have effect as If enacted in this Act. The rules framed in pursuance of this provision, the West Pakistan Cinema--tograph Rules, 1962, are quite detailed and extensive. Its part II lays down the procedure in granting licences. Under rule 3 no person under 18 years of ago is entitled to obtain or hold any licence. Under rule 5 any person who intends to obtain an Annual Licence has to make as application to the District Magistrate for grant of a No-Objection Certificate accompanied by a plan of the proposed site drawn to scale which shall clearly indicate the surrounding roads and buildings including any schools, hospitals and mosques situated with n a distance of 200 yards of the proposed site. Before granting No Objection Certificate the District Magistrate is required to take into consideration the objection, if any and an order refusing to grant No-- Objection Certificate is appealable. Under rule 8 every application for grant of a licence is not only to be accompanied by a true copy of the No-Objection Certificate granted under rule S but a complete construction plan of the structure, including the plan for generation or conversion of electrical energy, a site plan showing the position of the premises in relation to any adjacent promises and to the public therefore upon which the premises abuts and the arrangement proposed for the parking of motor care and other vehicles. Under rule 11 the District Magistrate is empowered to issue such directions 9r instructions to the licensee as may be considered necessary to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passers-by in the vicinity of the licensed premises or for the maintenance of public safety and public order including closure of any licensed premises for specified number of days in the event of any out break or apprehended out-break of an epidemic. The licensee under rule 12 is not to permit any person during a cinematograph exhibition or in the intervals of the exhibitions to shout in the auditorium for the purpose of hawking or offering for sale eatables, drinks or any other articles;. Rule 13 prohibits exhibition of films after 12-30 a.m. And rule 14 provides that the licensed premises shall not be used for any purpose other than cinematograph exhibition except with the previous permission of the District Magistrate. Rule 15, requires the licensee to provide sufficient number of spittoons containing strong disinfectant. Under rule 17, the District Magistrate is required to notify the name of the person in general charge of the licensed premises and the cirematograph apparatus during the whole time that any exhibition is in progress and under rule 19, no slot or amusement machine shall be operated on the licensed premises except with the written permission of two District Magistrate. These are followed by rules 20 to 29 on the subjects of inspection and, alterations and repairs. Then there are rules relating to seating accommodation, number of permitted spectators, admission tickets bearing serial numbers, the number of performances on the foils and the counter-foils, and that each performance ticket book shall be marked closed on the last counter-foil issued. Finally, there are ruled relating to projector apparatus and films, and lighting end electrical installations.
5. As against this all that section 124 of the Cantonments Act provides is that no exhibition of pictures or other optical effects by means of a cinemetograph or other like apparatus for the purpose of which inflamable films are used and no public dramatic performance or pantomime, shall be given in any Cantonment elsewhere than in premises for which a licence has been granted by the Board under t: is section, The context in which section 124 appears is also significant.
It appears in Chapter IX of the Act entitled "Public Safety fit. Suppression of Nuisances", which begins with section 118 which deals with general nuisances, section 119 with registration and control of dogs and section 120 with road traffic The Sub-heading of sections 121 to 127 is Prevention of Fire etc. Section 121 empowers the Cantonment Board to prohibit use of inflamahle material for building purposes and section 122 from stacking or collecting inflamable materials. Section 123 prohibits every person to set a naked light on or near any building fn any street or other public place in a cantonment in such manner as ;o cause danger of fire. Section 125 makes it an off-,rice to discharge fire arms of letting off fire-works etc. Section 126 empowers the Cantonment to require that any building or well etc., be rendered unsafe and the last section 127 in this Chapter prohibits use of waste land for being used for improper purposes.
6. Even a cursory examination of the two enactments makes it obvious that though its subject is the same, its scope as well as objects are different. While the object of obtaining a licence under section 124 is limited to public safety, in other words, to provide a safe premises for public performances, the object of Cinematograph Act and the Rules framed thereunder is far wider. It will, therefore, follow that there is no conflict or inconsistency between the two. They bash run parallel and must he given effect to and the result, therefore, is that the cinema owners are required to have licence under Cinematograph Act and if the cinema is situate in the cantonment area, also a licence under section 124 of the Cantonment Act.
7. Mr. Mohammad Arif, the learned counsel for the petitioners laid great stress on the fact that section 124 commences with the words "Notwith--standing anything contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1918'-- which, according to him were the words of exclusion. According to him these words exclude the application of Cinematograph Act, 1918 is so far as it requires obtaining of a licence for cinemas situated in Cantonment area. :i If the words are so construed the Cinematograph Act in so far as it extends to cantonment arias will stand repealed by section 124 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. But is that what must necessarily follow from the use of the word "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1918" in the context in which they appear 7 These words are pretty notorious in law and have been often user to give effect to a particular provision of law, section 124 in the present case, so that its application is tint whittled by any other provision contained in any other law, in the present case, the Cinematograph Act. It, however, does not follow that the other law in its own field will be any less effective. At the most these words exclude such d provisions of Cinematograph Ace as are contrary to or inconsistent with section 124. The result in short is that section 124 will take effect notwithstanding anything contained in Cinematograph Act, 1918, and nothing contained in the latter will exclude the obligation to obtain licence under section 124 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The opening words, to my mind have been used to emphasise the continued effectiveness of this obligation. I am fortified in this view by the meaning given to the expression "notwith--standing" in the Oxford English Dictionary or "in spite of some thing", "nevertheless", "still", "yet", "although".
8. There is, therefore, no merit in these petitions and they are dismissed with cost.