2001 Supreme(SC) 543

2001(3) Supreme 28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik, Umesh C. Banerjee & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2298 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1460 of 2001)
Decided on 22-3-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, V.A. Bobde, V.A. Mohta, Bhimrao Naik, Ashok Desai, A.Y. Sakhare, P.N. Misra, Sr. Advocates, A.A. Kumbhakoni, Uday Umesh Lalit, S.V. Deshpande, Shivaji M. Jadhav, T. Raja, Sunil Kr. Verma, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
For interpretation of a statute statement of objects and reasons can only be looked into in the event of there being any requirement thereof and not otherwise. The meaning of the expressions used in the legislation, if is of doubtful nature, statement of objects and reasons may be a guide or an aid but not otherwise. But in the present case there is no ambiguity in the expression "any new member society" under Section 27(3) proviso of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as effected on 23 August 2000. So no outside aid is required to interpret it.

Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960-Section 27(3) together with amendment of the proviso as effected on 23 August, 2000-Meaning of expression "any new member society"-Initiation of election process of Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank in State of Maharashtra-The entire election programme, including the list of voters stand finalised on June 20, 2000-Effect of amendment of the proviso to Section 27(3) on 23.8.2000-High Court holding that inclusion of the societies which were eligible on 30.6.2000 could not be faulted on the amendment of 23.8.2000-Whether correct? (Yes) Petitioner s contention that any new member society after 20.6.2000 cannot be denied right to vote-Whether correct? (No)-Ordinance passed in pendency of appeal is only clarificatory-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : Mr. Bobde did put very strong reliance as to the understanding of the Government as is laid down in the Statement of objects and reasons. Statement of objects as noticed above can only be looked into in the event of there being any requirement therefor and not otherwise: The meaning of the expressions used in the legislation, if is of doubtful nature, may be a guide or an aid but not otherwise. The legislature has used the expression new -obviously with an intent to ascribe something other than existing members and this additional requirement by reason of an additional appendage by way of a statutory amendment must be stated to be that indicative of the intent and to convey a definite meaning. The word new in common English parlance cannot but mean something which was not existing and thus a society becoming a member on or after 23rd August, 2000 and not prior thereto: it cannot possibly apply to existing members but only new members after the amendment. (Para 19)

       Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid principle of construction, if the expression any new member society occurring in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 is construed, it conveys the only meaning that it refers to the societies to be formed hereafter and not of those societies which have already become member societies of the federal society. Therefore, the requirement of the completion of the period of three years from the date of its investing any part of its fund in the shares of such federal society would apply only to those societies which became member society of the federal society after 20th August, 2000. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Even if there remained any doubt in the matter of interpreting the proviso, the Ordinance that has been promulgated on 27th February, 2001, called the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001, after the first proviso to sub-section (3), a second proviso had been inserted, has removed any doubt or controversy in as much as it has been indicated therein that the first proviso will not apply to the member society which has invested any part of its fund in the share of the federal society before the commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2000 dated 20th August, 2000. The aforesaid Ordinance also has been given a retrospective effect to be effective from 23rd August, 2000. The Ordinance having been held to be valid by us as stated above, the so-called prohibition contained in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 will not apply to all those societies which have already become members of the federal society prior to 23rd August, 2000. On the wake of the aforesaid the Appeal thus fails: Each party, however, to pay and bear its own costs. (Paras 24 and 25)