Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. [2002] Insc 172 (2
April 2002)
Doraiswamy
Raju & Ashok Bhan Raju, J.
The
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay who lost before the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, is the appellant herein against
the judgment dated 30.8.85 in Appeal No.167 of 1980 whereunder the Division
Bench, while affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, restrained the
appellant-corporation from taking any action against the respondent under
Section 328 or 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in regard to their sign boards
of petroleum pumps. In order to appreciate the legal issues raised pertaining
to the scope and purport of the statutory provisions noticed supra, it becomes
necessary not only to advert to the nature of the activities of the respondent
which are the subject-matter in issue but also the conclusions arrived at in
the judgment under challenge as well as the reasons there for.
The
respondents are said to be successor-in-title of the company known as Burmah-Shell
Oil Storage & Distributing Company Limited carrying on business inter alia
as a distributor of petroleum products in various parts of the country. We are
concerned in this proceeding with the distribution of petroleum products from
various retail outlets of the respondents, known as petrol pumps in Bombay. Within the premises of those
petrol pumps, it has erected a pole with a metallic board projecting on the
pavement, which board displayed the symbol of a Shell, said to be the
registered trade mark of the respondent's predecessor.
The
height of the pole is said to be 18 ft. and the diameter of the metallic board
(on which appears the Shell symbol) is said to be 6 ft. Across the symbol of
the Shell appear the words 'Burmah-Shell' in letters of 3" height. All the
poles and the boards erected at the respondent's petrol pump are said to be
identical and most of them are illuminated at night by a small light at the
top. Though, prior to 1975 the respondent applied for requisite permission
under the Act for the erection of such sign boards at its various petrol pumps,
on the basis of subsequent advise said to have been obtained by them that those
boards were not an advertisement requiring permission under the provision of
the Act, noticed above, the respondent addressed letters dated 30.1.75 and
19.3.75 intimating their stand to that effect to the appellant-Corporation but
the authorities of the Corporation by their letter dated 29.9.75 insisted that
the permission was necessary for displaying such boards as they also
constituted an announcement or direction. Since in spite of the same, the
respondent stuck to its stand and did not obtain permission, the
appellant-Corporation launched criminal proceedings for committing offence
under Section 471 read with the provisions noticed above.
The
respondent at this stage filed Miscellaneous Petition No.1380 of 1976 seeking
for appropriate writ directing the corporation to withdraw or cancel those
complaints and to forebear the corporation from taking any action against the
respondent under Section 328 or 328A of the Act in respect of the boards
erected by them as referred to above.
On a
consideration of the submissions of the respective parties, the learned Single
Judge of the Bombay High Court by his judgment dated 15.2.80 sustained the
claim of the respondent by accepting the stand taken that the boards erected by
the respondent do not amount to an advertisement and what the respondent was
doing by such erection of boards was merely to give an indication or guidance
to the motorists and the general public regarding the situation or location of
their petrol pumps which are open all the 24 hours around.
The
learned Judge was of the view that since the motorist knew whose products he
wanted to buy and all that is informed by such installation is of the location
of the petrol pump, the signboards in question cannot be said to be an
advertisement or in the nature of an advertisement and its function and purpose
is to show the location of the respondent's petrol station where one may or may
not enter at his own choice. Repelling the stand taken for the appellant-
Corporation that the projection of the boards over the pavement and their
position, angle and height of the boards and the object underlying the same
attracted Section 328, it was held that they served only as an information to a
motorist or a member of the public even from some distance as to the location
of the petrol station more by way of a facility for the motorist and the public
without any invitation for patronage of the respondent's products. An earlier
decision in the case of M/s Glaxo Laboratories (India) Limited came to be distinguished on the facts and held to
be not applicable to the case on hand. While construing the word 'announcement'
it was held that a mere imparting of an information alone will not constitute
an 'announcement' and by the mere indication and information provided in the case
on hand to those interested as to the location of the petrol pump, the
respondent made no announcement within the meaning of the said word used in the
provision. Adverting to the word 'Direction', it was observed that anything,
which does not convey an imperative and mandatory message, cannot be construed
to mean a `direction' and that what was conveyed by the signboard in the case
on hand was a message, permissive or optional for the motorist or a member of
the public to avail of or not the services rendered at the Petrol Pump. The
view thus expressed was that providing an information does not constitute
giving a direction to go to the petrol stations by way of enforcing any
obedience. It was, therefore, held to be not a `direction' and consequently the
claim of the respondent came to be upheld by the learned Single Judge.
The
Division Bench of the High Court, before which the matter was pursued by the
appellant-Corporation, substantially agreed with the conclusions of the learned
Single Judge, though a different approach was adopted as to the interpretation
placed on the word 'advertisement' in the statutory provision. It was of the
view that though the insignia such as the one in question tells the members of
the public that what is sold at the petrol pump is not only the petrol but the
petrol of a particular company, there being nothing for the consumer public to
choose between petroleum products manufactured and sold by different companies,
the installation does not constitute an advertisement within the meaning of the
word as used in the statutory provision in question in the absence of any
commercial exploitation underlying the same, which, according to the Division
Bench, is the normal purpose of an advertisement. On the view that the primary
or the dominant object of the signboard in question is only to indicate to the
consumer the place where the product or service is available and to guide him
to that place the sign will not amount to an advertisement and the mere fact
that incidentally it leads to the sale of the product or service is not enough
to make it an advertisement. The Division Bench was also of the view that since
the words 'announcement' and 'direction' are general in their sweep and follow
the word 'advertisement' which is particular in description and the three words
are found in the company of each other, both according to the Rule of ejusdem generis
and noscitur a sociis they only partake the nature of an advertisement, which,
in the view of the Division Bench, as noticed earlier, the signboards in
question do not constitute to be such.
Mr. Pallav
Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellant-corporation, while reiterating the
stand taken before the High Court, contended that the construction placed by
the High Court on the scope of Sections 328 and 328A and, particularly the
words 'advertisement', 'announcement' and 'direction', does not constitute the
correct and proper interpretation and suffer from serious infirmities to
warrant interference in this appeal. The signboards put up on a pole of a
particular height displaying the sign/emblem in a manner following outside the
pavement and overhanging on the roads/streets so as to make it visible against
the sky from some points renders it answerable and fall within the definition
of `sky-sign', as defined under Section 328 of the Act. Per contra, Mr. Dhruv
Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, strenuously contended by
adopting the reasoning of the judgments under challenge that having regard to
the intent and object of the provision as well as scheme underlying the same,
the signboards of the nature put up by the respondent cannot be held to attract
the provision of Section 328 or 328A of the Act. According to the learned
counsel those provisions should be construed as dealing with different forms of
advertisement or any message in the nature of an advertisement and not an
`announcement' or `direction', simplicitor in the nature of merely an
information.
It was
also contended that the three words, noticed supra, were analogous to each
other and must par take the colour and character of an advertisement, the
intention of the legislation also being only to regulate `sky-sign' in the
nature of an advertisement and not an `announcement' or `direction', simplicitor.
Taking clue from the use of the words `Advertisement fees' in revised
notification made available by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation, which contained the schedule of fees, the learned
counsel for the respondent reiterated the stand that the contemporaneous understanding
by the authorities of the Corporation also support the stand of the respondent
that only advertisement or those in the nature of advertisement alone that are
attracted by the provision contained in Sections 328 and 328A of the Act. This
submission, in our view, only overlooks the use of both the words
`Advertisement' and `Sky-sign' simultaneously meaning, perhaps the multiple
purpose and use of these words - That apart, such notifications published with
reference to the Head of Accounts, to which the collections were to be credited
to for budgetary purposes, can be of no guide whatsoever in respect of the
construction to be placed on these words.
Though,
the relevant statutory provisions concerned are Section 328/328A of the Act,
the issues raised before us have to be considered and decided mainly on the
scope of the sub Section (3) of Section 328 of the Act, which reads as follows:
"(3).
If any sky-sign be erected, fixed or retained contrary to the provisions of
this section, or after permission for the erection, fixing or retention thereof
for any period shall have expired or become void, the Commissioner may, by
written notice, require the owner or occupier of the land, building or
structure, upon or over which the sky-sign is erected, fixed or retained, to
take down and remove such sky-sign.
The
expression "sky-sign" shall in this section mean any word, letter,
model, sign, device or representation in the nature of an advertisement,
announcement or direction, supported on or attached to any post, pole, standard
framework or other support wholly or in part upon or over any land, building or
structure which, or any part of which sky-sign, shall be visible against the
sky from some point in any street and includes all and every part of any such post,
pole standard framework or other support. The expression "sky-sign"
shall also include any balloon, parachute, or other similar device employed
wholly or in part for the purposes of any advertisement, announcement or
direction upon or over any land, building or structure or upon or over any
street, but shall not include-
(a) any
flagstaff, pole, vane or weathercock, unless adapted or used wholly or in part
for the purpose of any advertisement, announcement or direction;
(b) any
sign, or any board, frame or other contrivance securely fixed to or on the top
of the wall or parapet of any building or on the cornice or blocking course of
any wall, or to the ridge of a roof:
Provided
that such board, frame or other contrivance be of one continuous face and not
open work, and do not extend in height more than three feet above any part of
the wall, or parapet or ridge to, against, or on which it is fixed or
supported;
(c)
any word, letter, model, sign, device or representation as aforesaid, relating
exclusively to the business of a railway company, and place wholly upon or over
any railway, railway station, yard, platform or station approach belonging to a
railway company, and so placed that it cannot fall into any street or public
place;
(d) any
notice of land or buildings to be sold, or let, placed upon such land or
buildings." The learned counsel appearing on either side invited our
attention, at considerable length, to the judgments of the High Court wherein
the dictionary meaning of the words required to be construed came to be
adverted to from Encyclopedia Britannica and the Words and phrases: permanent
edition of West Publishing Company and it is unnecessary to repeat them once
again, herein.
Reference
has also been made to the portions of the judgments where observations came to
be made about the principles underlying the doctrine of 'Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur
A Sociis' and their relevance and application to the case on hand. The
principle underlying 'Noscitur A Sociis' is that, two or more words which are
susceptible of analogous meaning when are coupled together are to be understood
as used in their cognate sense, taking, as it were, their colour from each
other, that is, the more general is to be restricted to a sense analogous to
the less general. The principle underlying 'Ejusdem Generis' is applied when
the statutory provision concerned contains an enumeration of specific words,
the subject of the enumeration thereby constituting a class or category but
which class or category is not exhausted at the same time by the enumeration
and the general term follows the enumeration with no specific indication of any
different legislative intention. This rule which normally envisage words of
general nature following specific and particular words to be construed as
limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified, also
requires to be applied with great caution and not pushed too far so as to
unduly or unnecessarily limit general and comprehensive words to dwarf size. Dehors
the doctrine or maxim concerned useful in the matter of construction of a
statute or its provisions the intent of the legislature cannot altogether be
ignored and a construction which really subserves the purpose of the enactment
must only be adopted than one which will defeat it and thereby ensure in the
process that no part of the provision is rendered surplus or otiose.
On a
careful consideration of the approach and methodology of the construction
adopted by the High Court, we are of the view that serious infirmity was
allowed to be crept into the process due to unwarranted and unjust dissection
of Section 328 (3) of the Act and import into the words meanings totally
uncalled for and beyond their context, defeating to a great extent the very
purpose and aim of enactment of the provision by the legislature. The statutory
definition of the expression 'sky-sign' ordains it to mean, any word, letter,
model, sign, device or representation in the nature of an 'advertisement',
'announcement' or 'direction', supported on or attached to any of the things
specified upon or over any land or building or structure in a manner visible
against the sky from some point in any street and to be also inclusive of all
and every part of such pole, post, standard frame work or other support. It is
also stipulated therein to include any balloon, parachute or other similar
device employed wholly or in part for the purpose of any advertisement,
announcement or direction upon or over any land, building or structure or upon
or over any street. The main and salutary purpose of Section 328/328A is to
regulate the installation/construction of signboards of the nature defined and
envisaged therein to keep road margins and space above such margins not
indiscriminately meddled with so as to affect the free movement and free flow
of traffic, preserve the ecology and environment by averting and regulation to
the extent required, ensuring, in public interest, adverse physiological and
psychological impacts either directly or indirectly due to the use of neon
lights/illuminations used for the installations. The provision for licensing is
incidental and necessarily required to properly and effectively enforce the
regulations and the levy and collection of fee also ultimately seem to achieve
the same purpose. The statutory provisions seem to have been thus enacted with
a laudable public purpose and the definition is also not only inclusive in
nature but the enumeration of the various nature of fixtures, the manner and
methods adopted therefor, as also the obvious and ostensible object of such
fixtures/installations found specified therein, under the scheme of things, are
found to be with the intention of making the provision an all inclusive one to
cover or rope in all possible things and not to operate in a manner to bring about
any limitation on their scope, and that too to render the very provision
otiose, redundant and meaningless.
Coming
to the ordinary meaning of the words noticed by the High Court,
'Advertisement', 'Announcement' and 'Direction' used in the statutory provision
under consideration, we find the High Court to have adopted a hyper-technical
approach, altogether. In common parlance, 'advertisement' means to make
publicly known an information by some device and to draw or attract attention
of public/individual concerned to such information. It need not necessarily be
to sell only or solely for commercial exploitation. Likewise, 'announcement'
also normally means any and every effort or enterprise and attempts made to
make known a thing or the existence of a thing openly or publicly. Similarly,
the word 'direction' in the context of users of the road or motorists on the
road should invariably only mean, to show the way or path towards an object or
point or indicate the route for a destination. A direction in a particular
context may even be an instruction simplicitor to guide and need not always
mean a command to obey or carry out implicitly only the instruction. In
construing the provisions of a statute or the words or language used, it has
been always considered essential for the Court normally to give effect to the
natural or ordinary meaning of the words, keeping in view the subject matter
with reference to which the words are used, without ascribing to words used any
absolute meaning as if in vacuo or without reference to the context,
particularly when such normal or ordinary understanding or construction
conforms to and is consistent with the purpose or object of the legislation.
The principles of Ejusdem Generis / Noscitur a sociis have no relevance to the
case on hand and seem to have been over deployed, unnecessarily under scoring
the actual or real meaning of the words in the context and purpose of their use
in the statutory provision of the Act.
The
indication given above by emphasis supplied to some of the words used in the
provision in question as well as the words 'in the nature of' an advertisement,
announcement or direction would go to show that it is not a must to be that but
Is enough if its 'in the nature of' that which is specified. The three words
required to be construed cannot be said to admit of any one particular meaning
alone but capable of being understood by their general or interrelated meaning
suitable for the context. Consequently, we are not persuaded to affix our seal
of approval to the manner and method of construction adopted by the High Court
both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In view of the above, we
allow this appeal. The judgment under challenge cannot be sustained and while
setting aside the same, we order the dismissal of Misc. Writ Petition No.1380
of 1976 filed by the respondent in the High Court.
The
consequences of our allowing the appeal and ordering the dismissal of the writ
petition filed by the respondent would result in the restoration of the
proceedings instituted before the Criminal Court for prosecuting the respondent
under Section 471 of the Act or with a liberty to institute or pursue the same
further. The fact that the respondent succeeded before the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench would at any rate go to show that the respondent had no
culpable or guilty mind to violate or evade compliance and that the respondent
seems to have entertained a genuine belief that they are not bound by the
provisions contained in Section 328/328A of the Act. Therefore, instead of
allowing the restoration of the earlier launched criminal proceedings and/or
before allowing the appellant-Corporation to pursue further action under
Section 471 of the Act, taking into account the fact that the respondent is a
public authority, which seemed to have seen vindicating its rights genuinely,
we consider it just and proper to direct the appellant-Corporation to issue an
appropriate notice intimating the respondent details as to the liability
monetarily towards arrears of licence fees and to call upon the respondent not
only to remit the same but also to make a formal application for ratification
and approval of their installations within 30 days from the date of service of
such notice by the appellant-Corporation on the respondent and thereafter pass
orders determining the sum payable (the arrears of license fee alone) and
intimate the sum so fixed to the respondent. The respondent shall remit the sum
so determined within two months from the date of such intimation. On respondent
making compliance with such directions of the appellant-Corporation pursuant to
the liberty granted by us now, the appellant-Corporation will not pursue the
prosecution of the respondent.
Per
contra, if the respondent commits any default or contravention of such
directions, the proceedings already initiated against the respondent would
revive and the appellant-Corporation shall be at liberty to take all such
action as is permissible in law pursuant to our judgment, and as the
circumstances may warrant to enforce the provisions of the Act against the
respondent. No costs.
J.
[Doraiswamy
Raju] J.
[Ashok
Bhan] April 2, 2002.
Back