GOVIND LAL V. A.P.M. COMMITTEE, AIR 1976 SC 263

GOVIND LAL V. A.P.M. COMMITTEE, AIR 1976 SC 263

 

 FACTS

1. An Inspector of Godhra Agricultural Produce Market Committee filed a complaint against the appellant charging him with having purchased a certain quantity of ginger in January and February, 1969 without obtaining a license as required by the Act.
2. The learned Magistrate accepted the factum of purchase but he acquitted the appellant on the ground that the relevant notification in regard to the inclusion of ginger was not shown to have been promulgated and published as required by the Act.
3. In appeal, the High Court of Gujarat set aside the acquittal.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was brought in the Supreme Court.

 

ISSUE

Whether the notification issued under Section 6(5) of the Act, covering additional varieties of agricultural produce like ginger and onion, must not only be published in the official gazette but must also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper?

 

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The argument of the appellant is twofold:

Firstly, that “this section” means “this sub-section” so that the procedure in regard to publication which is laid down in subsection (1) of Section 6 must be restricted to notifications issued under that sub-section and cannot be extended to those issued under sub-section (5) of Section 6; and

 Secondly, assuming that the words “this section” are wide enough to cover every sub-section of Section 6, the word “shall” ought to be read as “may”.

In Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1074], it was observed that:

The term ‘shall’ in its ordinary significance is mandatory and the court shall ordinarily give that interpretation to that term unless such an interpretation leads to some absurd or inconvenient consequence or be at variance with the intent of the Legislature, to be collected from other parts of the Act. The construction of the said expression depends on the provisions of a particular Act, the setting in which the expression appears, the object for which the direction is given, the consequences that would flow from the infringement of the direction and such other considerations.

The same principle was expressed thus in Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui [(1973) 3 SCC 889, 895]: 

Several tests have been propounded in decided cases for determining the question whether a provision in a statute, or a rule is mandatory or directory. No universal rule can be laid down on this matter. In each case one must look at the subject-matter and consider the importance of the provision being disregarded and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured.

 

RATIONALE

1. The Court observed the following with respect to Sec 6:

Section 6(1) of the Act provides in terms, plain and precise, that a notification issued under the section “shall also” be published in Gujarati in a newspaper.

The notification issued under Section 6(5) of the Act, like that under Section 6(1), must also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the particular area. This requirement is mandatory and must be fulfilled. Admittedly, the notification issued under Section 6(5) on February 16, 1963 was not published in a newspaper at all, much less in Gujarati. Accordingly, the inclusion of new varieties of agricultural produce in that notification lacks legal validity and no prosecution can be found upon its breach.

1. The Court also observed the following:

• If the Director intends to add or exclude an area or an agricultural produce, he must declare his intention by notification in the Official Gazette and such notification must also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper.
• Secondly, the Director must invite objections or suggestions by such notification and the notification must state that any objections or suggestions received within the stipulated time shall be considered by him.
• The fresh notification can be issued only after considering the objections and suggestions which the Director receives within the specified time.

1. The governing factor is the meaning and intent of the Legislature, which should be gathered from a variety of circumstances and considerations. In other words, the use of the word ‘shall’ or ‘may’ is not conclusive on the question whether the particular requirement of law is mandatory or directory. But the circumstance that the Legislature has used a language of compulsive force is always of great relevance and in the absence of anything contrary in the context indicating that a permissive interpretation is permissible, the statute ought to be construed as peremptory.

 

HELD

The High Court was concerned with Section 6(5) of the Act which has made a conscious departure from the Bombay Act in important respects. The High Court did not even refer to the provisions of the Act and it is doubtful whether those provisions were at all brought to its notice. For these reasons the SC set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra.

 

COMMENTARY

“Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee", the notification was issued under the parent Act (Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964) and was required to be published in Gujarati in a newspaper being circulated in that area. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of publication in Gujarati was mandatory and as the same was not complied with, the notification was invalid.