SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 281

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
13th August, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Senior Electric Inspector and others, Appellants
Versus
Laxminarayan Chopra and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate, for Mr. P. K. Bose, Advocate, with him); for Appellants; M/s. Dipak Datta Choudhri and P. D. Menon, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.

Advocates:
B.SEN, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, P.D.MENON, P.K.BOSH, P.K.CHATTERJI

The definition of "telegraph line" in the Indian Telegraph Act (Act 13 of 1885) is wide enough to take in electric lines used for the purpose of wireless telegraph.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY ACT - Telegraph line - Interpretation - Wireless telegraphy - Whether wires used for the purpose of the apparatus of the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station are telegraph lines within the meaning of S. 34(2)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Fact of the Case:

The first respondent, Laxmi Narayan Chopra, carries on business as motor coach builder under the name and style of "Chopra Motors" having his factory at 139, Regent Park, Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta. In the said factory a number of "Universal Electric Motors" are operated for the purpose of working electric drills. Within a distance of 100 feet of the said factory, there is a Post and Telegraph Wireless Station, which besides functioning as a coast station communicating with ships at sea, handles public messages in large volume from Darjeeling, Shillong, Gauhati, Agartala and New Delhi. In or about April, 1953, severe electrical interference was observed in the said station and experts attributed the same to local induction from the first respondent's factory. On October 13, 1953, the Senior Electric Inspector issued a notice to the first respondent to show cause in writing as to why an order under S. 34(2)(b) of the Act, read with notification No. 4193-COM dated August 14, 1929, requiring discontinuation of the operation of the Universal Electric Motors in the said factory premises should not be made. After some correspondence, on December 1, 1953, the Senior Electric Inspector made an order under S. 34(2) (b) of the Act requiring the first respondent to remedy the injuries affecting the lines used for wireless telegraphic communications at the Wireless Receiving Centre. On January 12, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition in the High Court at Calcutta under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellants to withdraw and cancel the said order and to forbear from giving effect to the same. The petition came up for hearing, in the first instance, before Sinha, J., of that Court. It was contended, inter alia, that there was no "telegraph line" in the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station within the meaning of S. 34(2)(b) of the Act, and, therefore, the notice issued by the Senior Electric Inspector was without jurisdiction. Sinha, J., rejected the contention and dismissed the petition. But, on appeal, a division bench of that High Court, consisting of Mookerjee, A.C. J., and H. K. Bose, J., accepted the contention of the first respondent and issued a writ as prayed for. The present appeal is directed against the said order.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the expression "telegraph line" is sufficiently comprehensive to take in the wires used for the purpose of the apparatus of the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station.

Issues: Whether wires used for the purpose of the apparatus of the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station are telegraph lines within the meaning of S. 34(2)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the definition of "telegraph line" in the Indian Telegraph Act (Act 13 of 1885), which is included by reference in the Act, is wide enough to take in electric lines used for the purpose of wireless telegraph and that the Appellate Bench of the High Court went wrong in invoking the old maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege in construing the provisions of a modern statute.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the petition filed by the first respondent. The appeal was allowed, but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal raises the question of construction of the expression "telegraph line" in S. 34(2)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910), (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The first respondent, Laxmi Narayan Chopra, carries on business as motor coach builder under the name and style of "Chopra Motors having his factory at 139, Regent Park, Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta. In the said factory a number of "Universal Electric Motors" are operated for the purpose of working electric drills. Within a distance of 100 feet of the said factory, there is a Post and Telegraph Wireless Station, which besides functioning as a coast station communicating with ships at sea, handles public messages in large volume from Darjeeling, Shillong, Gauhati, Agartala and New Delhi. In or about April, 1953, severe electrical interference was observed in the said station and experts attributed the same to local induction from the first respondent s factory. On October 13, 1953, the Senior Electric Inspector issued a notice to the first respondent to show cause in writing as to why an order under S. 34(2)(b) of the Act, read with notification No. 4193-COM dated August 14, 1929, requiring discontinuation of the operation of the Universal Electric Motors in the said factory premises should not be made. After some correspondence, on December 1, 1953, the Senior Electric Inspector made an order under S. 34(2) (b) of the Act requiring the first respondent to remedy the injuries affecting the lines used for wireless telegraphic communications at the Wireless Receiving Centre. On January 12, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition in the High Court at Calcutta under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellants to withdraw and cancel the said order and to forbear from giving effect to the same. The petition came up for hearing, in the first instance, before Sinha, J., of that Court. It was contended, inter alia, that there was no "telegraph line" in the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station within the meaning of S. 34(2)(b) of the Act, and, therefore, the notice issued by the Senior Electric Inspector was without jurisdiction. Sinha, J., rejected the contention and dismissed the petition. But, on appeal, a division bench of that High Court, consisting of Mookerjee, A.C. J., and H. K. Bose, J., accepted the contention of the first respondent and issued a writ as prayed for. The present appeal is directed against the said order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the definition of "telegraph line" in the Indian Telegraph Act (Act 13 of 1885), which is included by reference in the Act, is wide enough to take in electric lines used for the purpose of wireless telegraph and that the Appellate Bench of the High Court went wrong in invoking the old maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege in construing the provisions of a modern statute. The first respondent is ex parte; but in this case his viewpoint is forcibly expressed in the judgment of the High Court under appeal.

4. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary at the outset to read the relevant provisions of the Act and the Telegraph Act.

The Indian Electricity Act, 1910:

Section 34. (2) If at any time it is established to the satisfaction of the appropriate Government-

(b) that any electric supply-lines or other works for the generation, transmission, supply or use of energy are attended with danger to the public safety or to human life or injuriously affected any telegraph-line,

the appropriate Government may, by order in writing, specify the matter complained of and require the owner or user of such electric supply-lines or other works to remedy it in such manner as shall be specified in the order, and may also in like manner forbid the use of, and the supply of energy to, any electric supply-line or works until the order is complied with or for such time




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top