Madanlal
Manoharlal & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr [1989] INSC 364 (28 November 1989)
Sharma,
L.M. (J) Sharma, L.M. (J) Misra Rangnath
CITATION:
1988 AIR 615 1988 SCC (1) 615 JT 1988 (1) 138 1988 SCALE (1)169
ACT:
Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 2(a) and Schedule Item 4
I--Sheep hair--Whether covered by wool (0on)" and consequently
agricultural produce.
Words
and Phrases: Wool (0on)--Meaning of.
HEAD NOTE:
These
writ petitions were filed by licencesed dealers who manufacture woollen fabrics
and blankets. They purchase sheep hair and make them yarn for use in
manufacturing the above items. The challenge is against the insistence of the
State Govt. to treat sheep hair as agricultural produce under the Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and requiring the petitioners to obtain licence
and pay market fee for transactions in sheep hair.
It has
been contended by the petitioners that even though goat hair and camel hair are
included in the schedule, sheep hair is not included and hence sheep hair is
not agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act. As regards item No. 41,
Wool (0on) appearing in the schedule, it was contended that wool is a
manufactured item of sheep hair and not sheep hair itself and the word "wool"
according to its dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals
including sheep.
Dismissing
the writ petitions, this Court,
HELD:
1.1 Item No. 41 of the schedule after the word "wool" uses the word
"0on" also within brackets which indicates as to what was really
intended by the us of the word "wool". Indeed, in the Hindi version
of the Act item No. 41 of the schedule uses the word ' '0on" only and does
not at all use the word "wool". The raw-material out of which a
textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool. Not only the textile fibre
but also the soft under-coat of various animals including sheep has itself been
described as wool. Wool has almost invariably been used in the context of sheep
hair. [295G; 296A] 294
1.2
Interpreting item No. 41 Wool (0on) of the schedule in the light of the above,
there seems to be no manner of doubt that the word "wool" has been
used therein only in the sense in which the word "0on" is understood
in the trade by the dealer and the consumer in the popular sense namely that
which people conversant with the word '0on' would attribute to it. This
intention is apparent from the circumstance that care has been taken to
specifically include goat-hair and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the
schedule. Had wool (0on) been used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense,
it would have automatically included goat-hair and camelhair and the specific
inclusion of Goat-hair and Camel-hair at item No. 75 and 76 would have been
wholly unnecessary.
Thus
the word 'Wool (0on)' has obviously been used in the popular sense and not in
the sense used in scientific and technical terminology which the traders and
the consumers are not normally supposed to know. [297D-H; 298A] Indian Aluminium
Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, [1985] 3 SCC 284 and Collector of Central
Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., [1989]
1 SCC 150, relied on.
Encyclopaedia
Britannica Vol. 23, relied on.
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1695 of 1987 Etc. Etc.
(Under
Article ,' 23 of the Consitution of India).
Govind
Mukhotey, J.D. Jain and B.B. Sinha for the Petitioners.
Dr.
Y.S. Chitale, Mahabir Singh, K.B. Rohtagi and Shashank Shekhar for the
Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. The petitioners in these writ
petitions are licenced dealers having factories and manufacturing units at Panipat
in the State of Haryana and consume sheep hair for
manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets. In order to carry on their trade
they purchase sheep-hair to get yarn manufactured out of it for being used in
its turn for manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets.
The
only question urged in these writ petitions is as to whether sheep-hair was an
agricultural produce within the meaning of the said 295 term as defined under Section
2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) so as to attract the provisions of the said Act to it.
The
term "agricultural produce" according to its definition contained
under Section 2(a) of the Act means all produce, whether processed or not, of
agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the
Schedule to the Act. On its plain meaning, therefore, only such produce as is
specified in the Schedule to the Act shall fall within the term
"agricultural produce". Section 38 of the Act confers power on the
State Government, by notification, to add to the Schedule any other item of
agricultural produce or amend or omit any item of such produce specified
therein.
The
relevant items in the Schedule on which reliance has been placed by learned
counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that sheep-hair was
not an agricultural produce are items 41. Wool (Oon), 75. Goat-hair and 76. Camel-hair.
It has
been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that even though Goat-hair
and Camel-hair have been included in the Schedule, Sheep-hair had not been so
included and consequently sheep-hair was not an agricultural produce within the
meaning of the Act and the insistence of the authorities that the petitioners
should obtain a licence and pay market fee with regard to their transaction in
respect of sheephair was unjustified. With regard to item No. 4 l namely Wool (Oon),
it was urged firstly that wool is the manufactured item of sheep-hair and not
sheep-hair itself and secondly the word 'wool' according to its dictionary
meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including sheep. Reference in
this behalf has been made to the Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
Terms--M.C. Graw--Hill.
According
to it wool is a textile fibre made from raw wool characterised by absorbency,
resiliency and insulation. It further states that wool is the soft undercoat of
various animals such as sheep, angora, goat, camel, alpaca, llamma and vicuna.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to agree with the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Before dealing with the
matter further it would be useful to notice at this place that item No. 41 of
the Schedule after the word 'wool' uses the word '0on' also within brackets
which indicates as to what was really intended by the use of the word 'Wool'.
Indeed, in the Hindi version of the Act, item No. 41 of the Schedule uses the
word '0on' only and does not at all use the word 'wool'. Now to the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the first submission made by him
that the word 'wool' contemplated manufactured item of 296 sheep-hair and not
sheep-hair itself, it believed even by the dictionary meaning of the said word
relied on by him.
Firstly,
the raw-material out of which a textile fibre is made is also described as raw
wool. Secondly, not only the textile fibre but also the soft undercoat of
various animals including sheep has itself been described as wool. It is,
therefore, apparent that not only the textile fibre made out of raw wool but
even the soft undercoat of the various animals including sheep, according to
the dictionary aforesaid, would be wool. Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the
heading wool in vol. 23, states: "Animal fibres are usually spoken of as
hair, with the exception of the coat of the sheep which is usually termed
wool". A perusal of what has been stated under the heading wool therein
would indicate that wool has almost invariably been used in the context of
sheep-hair.
In
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, [1985] 3 SCC page 284 after
referring to several earlier decisions of this Court it was held that in
determining the meaning or connotation of words and expressions describing an
article in a tariff schedule those words and expressions should be construed in
the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and the
customer when goods are marketable. The same rule of interpretation was reiterated
in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., [1989] 1
SCC page 150. It was held:
"It
is well settled, as mentioned before, that where no definition is provided in
the statute itself, as in this case for ascertaining the correct meaning of a
fiscal entry reference to a dictionary is not always safe. The correct guide,
it appears in such a case, is the context and the trade meaning XXXXX The trade
meaning is one which is prevalent in that particular trade where the goods is
known or traded. If special type of goods is subject matter of a fiscal entry
then that entry must be understood in the context of that particular trade,
bearing in mind that particular word xxxxx It is a well settled principle of
construction, as mentioned before, that where the word has a scientific or
technical meaning and also an ordinary meaning according to common parlance, it
is in the latter sense that in a taxing statute the word must be held to have
been used, unless contrary intention is clearly expressed by the legislature.
This princi297 ple is well settled by a long line of decisions of Canadian,
American, Australian and Indian cases. Pollock, J. pointed out in Grenfell v.
I.R.C., [1876] 1 Ex. D 242. 248 that if a statute contains language which is
capable of being construed in a popular sense, such a statute is not to be
construed according to the strict or technical meaning of the language
contained in it, but is to be construd in its popular sense, meaning of course,
by the words "popular sense" that which people conversant with the
subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it.
The
ordinary words in every day use are, therefore, to be construed according to
their popular sense. The same view was reiterated by Story, J. in 200 Chests of
Tea (1824) 9 Wheaton US
435,438 where he observed that the legislature does not suppose our merchants
to be naturalists, or geologists, or botanists." In our opinion, the
aforesaid rule of interpretation would apply even to the interpretation of the
items of the Schedule to the Act keeping in view the nature and purpose of the
enactment. Interpreting item No. 41 Wool(Oon) of the Schedule in this light
there seems to be no mannner of doubt that the word 'wool' has been used
therein only in the sense in which the word '0on' is understood in the trade by
the dealer and the consumer in the popular sense namely that which people
conversant with the word '0on' would attribute to it. If anyone goes to the
market to purchase wool (0on) he would be offered only sheep-hair and not
goat-hair or camel-hair or for the matter of that the hair of any other animal.
Indeed, there is intrinsic evidence in the Schedule itself of the fact that in
the English version the word 'Wool (0on)' and in the Hindi version '0on' only
at item No. 41 has been used in the same popular sense namely that of
sheep-hair. This intention is apparent from the circumstances that care has
been taken to specifically include goat-hair and camel-hair at items 75 and 76
of the Schedule.
Had
Wool (0on) been used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense as canvassed by
the learned counsel for the petitioners it would have automatically included
Goat-hair and Camel-hair also and the specific inclusion of Goat-hair and
Camel-hair at items 75 and 76 would have been wholly unnecessary. Consequently,
their specific inclusion at items 75 and 76 is a clear indication of the
awareness of the fact that the trade meaning of the word 'Wool (0on)' which is
prevalent in the popular sense would be sheep-hair alone and as such unless
goat-hair and camel-hair are included as specific items in the Schedule they
will not be treated as agricultural produce. The word 298 'Woo1 (0on)' has
obviously been used at item No. 41 of the Schedule in the aforesaid popular
sense and not in the sense used in scientific and technical terminology which
the traders and the consumers are not normally supposed to know.
In
view of the foregoing discussion, we are clearly of the opinion that sheep-hair
falls under the item No. 41 of the Schedule namely "Wool (0on)" as
contained in the English version and "0on" only as contained in the
Hindi version of the Act. Sheep-hair is consequently an agricultural produce
within the meaning of the Act so that the various provisions therein with
regard to agricultural produce are applicable to sheep-hair also.
In the
result, we find no merit in these writ petitions.
They
are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall be
no order as to costs.
G.N.
Petitions dismissed.
Back