Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—The writ petitioners have approached this Court in respect of the order dated 5.4.2010, whereby respondent No. 1 had directed the petitioners to submit the list of officers/employees and the further reminder dated 17.4.2010, whereby the petitioners were informed that failing which action would be taken under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in response to these letters, on 26.4.2010, a reply was given by the Regional Officer stating that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Central Corporation created by an Act of Parliament and does not fall under the definition of Local Authority in the State. The further stand was that the Corporation is engaged in commercial services involving vital public services and deployment of their officers/employees for census will gravely hamper the business. The writ petitioners have further stated that without taking into consideration their reply and without application of mind, a direction has been given on 11.5.2010 to submit the list of officers/employees as demanded vide earlier letters on prescribed format.

2. According to the writ petitioners, they have 290 persons including officers and employees working with the writ petitioner No. 2-Zonal Office at Kanpur, out of which 15 are Class IV employees, 112 Class III employees and 163 Class I Officers. It is the specific stand of the writ petitioners that they are not the ‘Local Authorities’ in the State. Reference is made to the various provisions of the Census Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. The principal contention, therefore, urged is that as the writ petitioner No. 1 is not a Local Authority, respondent No. 1 could not have issued a direction directing the petitioners to send their officers/employees for the purpose of census operations. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. State Bank of India, Patna and others, AIR 1995 SC 1078.

4. On behalf of respondent No. 1, an affidavit has been filed. It is contended that the writ petitioners have principally urged the following contentions :

“(a) The officers/employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India do not fall within the ambit of Section 4A of the Census Act, 1948 and, as such, they are not liable to be sent for census work.

(b) The petitioner-corporation does not fall within the definition of local authority for the purpose of Section 4A of the Census Act, 1948.

(c) The petitioner-corporation provides essential services to the general public and if the staff is sent for census work, then the entire functioning of the corporation will be affected.”

5. The respondents relied on the notification and the rules framed under the Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Census Rules, 1990’). Reliance has also been placed on Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules. It is submitted that it is open to the State-respondents to have called on the writ petitioners to make available their officers/employees working within their jurisdiction for the purpose of the census work. It is, therefore, submitted that in these circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and consequently, the interim order granted by this Court should be vacated.

6. Considering the above, we may now consider the contentions as urged on behalf of the writ petitioners herein. For that purpose, we will have to consider the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

7. We may note that at the hearing of this petition, a copy of the Census Act, 1948 was placed before us, as published in the AIR Manual. At the same time, we have the benefit of the Act as downloaded from the website. This exercise is being done in view of certain words in Section 7 of the Census Act as published in the AIR Manual and on the website differ. For the purpose of discussion, we may refer to the provisions of Section