1976 Supreme(SC) 498

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
D. R. Venkatachalam etc., Appellants
Versus
Dy. Transport Commissioner and others etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1178-1180 of 1976,
D/- 10-12-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. V. Subramanyam and Vineet Kumar Advocates with him) (in C. A. No. 1178 of 1976); Mr. K. S. Ramamurthi Sr. Advocate, (M/s. M. N. Rangachari, A. R. Ramanathan, K. Thimmalai, Jayaraman, M. M. L. Srivastava and Mr. A. T. M. Sampath, Advocates with him ) (in C. As. Nos. 1179-1180 of 1976), for Appellants; Mr. V. P. Raman Addl. Sol. Gen. (In C. As. Nos. 1178 to 1180), (Mr. D. N. Misra of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates with him), (for No. 2 in C. As. Nos. 1178 and 1180 of 1976 and No. 3 in C.A. No. 1179 of 1976), Mr. K. Prasaran, Advocate General Tamil Nadu (M/s. A. V. Rangam, T. Sathiadev, and Miss. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him), for Respondents (in C. As. Nos. 1179-1180 except Transport Corporation), Mr. K. Jayaram. Advocate and M/s. V. T. Gopalan and K. Ram Kumar, Advocates, for Appellant and Intervener in C.A. No. 1178 of 1976. 844

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Motor Vehicles Rules - Rule 155A – Motor accident claim – Claim of compensation - Core of counsels submissions assigning five marks for a State undertaking not fatally volatile of Section 47 of the Act Does the later amendment to the proviso to Section 47 giving preference to State transport systems other things being equal, impliedly repeal as contrary to its content Rule 155A which gives better advantage to favored category fulfilling spirit of statutory amendment more tellingly - Court will proceed further after stating the circumstances leading up to the writ petition before High Court and the appeal before us – Appellants who have come by special leave to this Court are private stage carriage operators - Court will relate the facts of one case the decision in which will settle fate of the rest decisive point of law being identical - Permit of appellants bus on the route Salem to Erode was to have expired on September and so he applied for renewal under Section 58 (2) of Act - Respondent State Transport Undertaking objected to the renewal of permit urging preferential grounds in its own favor - State undertakings claim was upheld on score that it secured higher marks computed with the aid of Rule 155-A - Baulked in his application for renewal appellant challenged order before Appellate Tribunal - Apprehending an adverse decision on the strength of Rule 155-A he filed a writ petition before High Court praying that a direction be issued to Appellate Tribunal to dispose of his appeal without relying on Rule 155-A - Plea was negative by learned single Judge and a Division Bench dismissed the appeal there from - Aggrieved by the concurrent findings the appellant has assailed before us vires of Rule 155-A as obnoxious to public interest excluding in some measure a fair competition and being contrary to the proviso to Section 47 (1) of the Act – Held, Court think that this novel method of construction puts if court may say so cart before the horse - It is apt to seriously mislead us unless the tendency to use such a mode of construction is checked or corrected by this Court - What is basic for a section or a chapter in a statute is provided firstly by words used in the statute itself secondly by context in which a provision occurs on in other words by reading statute as a whole thirdly by preamble which could supply key to meaning of the statute in cases of uncertainty or doubt and fourthly where some further aid to construction may still be needed to resolve an uncertainty by legislative history which discloses the wider context or perspective in which a provision was made to meet a particular need or to satisfy a particular purpose - Court start from a theory as to what the real purpose or need is or could be danger is that we may be injecting a subjective notion or purpose of our own into what is after all a legal question of construction or interpretation according to well-recognized principles although it may be necessary in exceptional cases to explain or fortify the interpretation adopted in light of so well understood and well known a purpose or theory that court could take judicial notice of it and refer to it - Exposition of the well known purpose or theoretical foundation must however generally flow from and explain an interpretation adopted on strength of legally acceptable and accepted canons of construction if court are to avoid the danger of an a priori determination of meaning of a provision based on court own pre-conceived notions of an ideological structure or scheme into which provision to be interpreted is somehow fitted - Path of judicial certainty and predictability has to be paved with well-settled principles of construction and interpretation – Court cannot let it develop into a slippery slope be set with hazardous possibilities - Science of statutory construction and interpretation –court think court can call it that - rests on certain systematized principles and rules of commonsense logic and reason - It cannot be transformed into a happy hunting ground for whatever may captivate forensic or judicial fancy or become something akin to poetry without even the attractions of euphony - Appeals dismissed