Back
1995 Supreme(All) 53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU
MIRACLE SUGAR FACTORY, VILLAGE AND POST BHANDSAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 36657 Of 1994
Decided On : 01/11/1995
S.U.KHAN
The court held that the interpretation of a statute should be purposive and take into account the intention of the legislature, rather than a literal interpretation.
Headnote:
LICENSING - KHANDSARI UNIT - DISTANCE FROM SUGAR MILL - INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY - PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION - INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE - LINGA PRINCIPLE - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for a license to start a khandsari unit but were denied due to the proposed unit being less than 25 kilometers from a sugar mill. They appealed the decision, but it was rejected. They filed a writ petition, which was dismissed as infructuous. They then filed another writ petition, which was also dismissed due to an alternative remedy of appeal. They appealed again, but it was rejected. They then filed the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned orders were legally infirm and liable to be set aside. The court found that the purpose of creating a restriction for the grant of a license within 25 kilometers of a sugar mill was to ensure that the supply of sugarcane to the mill should not be adversely affected. However, the court held that if the cane supply to a sugar mill is not adversely affected even by permitting the setting up of a khandsari unit within 25 kilometers of the mill, then there can be no prohibition in setting up such a unit.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders were legally infirm and liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the purpose of creating a restriction for the grant of a license within 25 kilometers of a sugar mill was to ensure that the supply of sugarcane to the mill should not be adversely affected? 3. Whether the cane supply to a sugar mill is adversely affected even by permitting the setting up of a khandsari unit within 25 kilometers of the mill?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned orders were legally infirm and liable to be set aside because they were based on a literal interpretation of the Government policy, which did not take into account the intention of the policy. 2. The court held that the purpose of creating a restriction for the grant of a license within 25 kilometers of a sugar mill was to ensure that the supply of sugarcane to the mill should not be adversely affected. 3. The court held that the cane supply to a sugar mill is not adversely affected even by permitting the setting up of a khandsari unit within 25 kilometers of the mill if the mill has not consumed sugarcane up to its maximum capacity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to reconsider and decide the petitioners' application for a grant of a license in accordance with the law and the observations made by the court.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 6-9-1994 and 14-11-1994 Annexures 5 and 7 to the writ petition.
( 2 ) I have heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
( 3 ) IN this case on 21-11-1994 this Court granted Standing Counsel two weeks to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. In the circumstances I treat the allegations made in the writ petition to be correct and dispose of the writ petition finally.
( 4 ) THE petitioners applied for grant of licence for starting a khandsari unit for the year 1993-94 but the same was rejected on the ground that the proposed unit is at a distance less than 25 kms. from Bareilly Sugar Mill which is run by the U. P. State Sugar Corporation. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal which was rejected on 1-8-1994 and against this order the petitioners had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 26716 of 1994. Thereafter they again applied for licence for the year 1094-95 on 6-7-1994 but this application too was rejected on 6-9-1994. Against this order they had filed Writ Petition No. 31425 of 1994 in this Court. Both these writ petitions were heard together on 30-9-1994. The first petition was dismissed as infructuous and the second petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. Accordingly the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 6-9-1994 which was rejected on 14-11-1994. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.
( 5 ) I have perusal the impugned orders. In the appellate order dated 14-11-1994 it has been stated that since the petitioners crusher for khandsari unit is proposed to be set up at a distance of 17 kms. from Bareilly Sugar Mill, hence licence cannot be granted. In my opinion the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity and are liable to be set aside. The Government policy is given in Annexure-2 to the writ petition which I have perused. It is obvious that the purpose of creating a restriction for grant of licence within 25 kms. of a sugar mill is that supply of sugarcane to the mill should not be adversely affected.
( 6 ) IN this connection it is necessary to mention that the modern method of interpretation is purposive or functional, and the literal rule of interpretation is out of vogue. As held by the Supreme Court in Director of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, 1994 (3) SCC 430 "are mechanical interpretation of the words and application of the legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose and object will render the legislation inane". In Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, 1979 (4) SCC 573, the Supreme Court held"a bare mechanical interpretation of the words devoid of concept or purpose will reduce most legislation to futility. It is a salutary rule well established that the intention of the legislation must be found reading the statute as a whole". Similarly, in Administrator, Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya, AIR 1992 SC 1846 : (1992 AIR SCW 2081) the Supreme Court observed "the mechanical approach to construction is altogether out of step with the modern positive approach. The modern positive approach is to have a purposeful construction that is to effectuate the object and purpose of the Act. "
( 7 ) IN S. P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan, AIR 1987 SC 222 : (1987 All LJ 88) the Supreme Court held "that the meaning must suit the purpose and the idea behind the statute in question in a particular case. The Court observed. Law should take pragmatic view of the matter and respond to the purpose for which it was made and also take cognizance of the current capabilities of technology and life style of the community. The purpose of the law provides a good guide to the interpretation of the meaning of the Act". In Kehar Singh v. State, AIR 1988 SC 1883: (1989 Cri LJ 1) the Supreme Court observed that during the last several years the grammatical or literal rule has been given a go-by and now the Courts look fo
