CALCUTTA GAS CO. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
AIR 1962 SC 1044
FACTS
Oriental Gas Company, a registered company in England, was empowered to lay pipes in Calcutta and its suburbs and to excavate the streets for the said purpose according to Act 5 of 1857 passed by the Legislative Council of India. Further, a firm bought 98 percent shares of the Oriental Gas Company and floated a limited liability company named Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) registered in india. They both entered an agreement wherein the Calcutta Gas Co. was appointed as a manager for the former company for the period of 20 years from july 5, 1948. However, the Respondent decided to take over the management of the Oriental Gas Company under the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960 passed by the legislative assembly of West Bengal. The Appellant company decided to challenge the validity of the said act.
ISSUE
The question before this Hon'ble Court was the validity of the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960.
RULE
Article 246 of the Constitution states that the Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws related to the matters enumerated in the union list while the state has exclusive powers to make laws for the respective states as enumerated in the state list.
It was imperative to mention some of the important entries in the lists-
List 1- Union List
Entry 52. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
List II - State List
Entry 24. Industries subject to the provisions of Entries 7 and 52 of List I.
Entry 25. Gas and gas-works.
INTENTION OF THE ACT- ORIENTAL GAS COMPANY ACT, 1960.
The provision of the act was confined only to the affairs of Oriental Gas Company Limited. Its long title shows that it was passed to provide for the taking over for a limited period of the management and control, and the subsequent acquisition of the undertaking of Oriental Gas Company Limited. Whereas, its preamble says that it would provide for the increase of the production of gas and improving the quality thereof for supply to industrial undertakings, hospitals and other welfare institutions etc and was also deemed to provide for the management and control of the undertaking for the limited period of time.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- Like the oriental gas company act, there was yet another act i.e. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 also known as the Central Act. Its main objective was to provide for the development and regulation of certain industries. Further, Section 2 of the act declared that it was expedient in the public interest that the union should control the industries mentioned in the first schedule. Both the acts were aimed at increasing the production, quality and supply pertaining to an industry and taking over the management if deemed necessary. The court also pointed out that the impugned Act occupies a part of the field already covered by the Central Act.
- The court observed that the power to legislate is given to the appropriate legislatures by Article 246 of the Constitution. However, sometimes the entries in the different or the same lists may overlap or be in direct conflict with one another and it would be the duty of the court to ensure reconciliation and harmony between them.
- In In re Central Provinces and Berar Act 14 of 1938, the question arose about the reconciliation of entry 45 of list 1 and entry 18 of the list 2 and it was observed that the rule of Harmonious Construction would apply in harmonising the entries between the two lists. It was also held in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabai that the rule of construction adopted by that decision for the purpose of harmonising the two apparently conflicting entries in the two Lists would equally apply to an apparent conflict between two entries in the same List.
- Hence the court observed three possible constructions- (1) Entry 24 of List II, which provides for industries generally, covers the industrial aspect of gas and gas-works leaving Entry 25 to provide for other aspects of gas and gas-works; (2) Entry 24 provides generally for industries, and Entry 25 carves out of it the specific industry of gas and gas-works, with the result that the industry of gas and gas-works is excluded from Entry 24; and (3) the industry of gas and gas-works falls under both the entries, that is, there is a real overlapping of the said entries.
- The Supreme Court concluded that there are multiple entries in the lists according to the article 246 of the Constitution and they are bound to overlap with each other and in such cases its the duty of the court to harmonise them. Entry 24 of the state list has a very large area and the entire industry in the area is covered. Entry 25 is only limited to the gas industry as it is devoted to the works of gas. Entry 52 of the central list means the same thing for the centre what entry 24 means for the state. Hence, it was held that according to the Harmonious Construction, the gas industry is exclusively covered in the entry 25 of the state list ensuring that the state has complete control over it. The state was therefore fully competent to make laws in this aspect and the act in question was valid.
RELEVANT THEORY
The basis of the principle of harmonious construction is that the legislature never intends to contradict itself by providing two repugnant provisions in the same statute. The Act has to be read as a whole and its provisions have to be harmonised giving effect to all of them. The rule of harmonious construction says that when two or more provisions of the same statute are repugnant, the Court tries to construe these provisions in such a manner, as to give effect to both by harmonising them with each other. The court may do so either by holding two or more apparently conflicting provisions as dealing with separate situations or by holding that one provision merely provides for an exception of the general rule contained therein. The court had an endeavour to always adopt the harmonious construction. It was examined that the entire statute must be first read as a whole, then Section by Section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word, and the relevant provisions must be read harmoniously.
Harmonious construction should be applied to statutory rules and courts should avoid absurd or unintended results. It should be resorted to making the provision meaningful in the context. Where there appears to be inconsistency in two Sections of the same Act, the principle of harmonious construction should be followed. Conflicting statutory provisions should be harmoniously construed for avoiding interpretation which may render any one of them ineffective or otiose or surplusage.
by Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Act. It clearly prohibits conversion by use of force or by allurement or by fraudulent means and Section 4 penalises such forcible conversion. Similarly Section 3 of the Orissa Act prohibits forcible conversion by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means, and Section 4 penalises such forcible conversion. The Acts therefore clearly provide for the maintenance of public order.
- The expression “public order” is a wide connotation and therefore the court accepted the viewpoint mentioned in Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras. It stated that “public order” has a wide connotation and signifies the state of tranquillity which prevails among the members of a political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established.
- It was concluded by this Hon'ble court that the article contemplated that restrictions may be imposed on the rights guaranteed by them in the interests of public order. If an attempt was made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the ground that someone has been “forcibly” converted to another religion, it would, in all probability, give rise to an apprehension of a breach of the public order, affecting the community at large. Therefore such acts fall within the purview of Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule as they are meant to avoid disturbances to the public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community. They do not provide for the regulation of religion hence dont fall under Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.
RELEVANT THEORY
- Purposive Construction discusses the importance of the purport and object of the act. It also states that a statute must be read in its entirety and purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying principles of purposive construction. A purposive construction promoting the object of the enactment but not extending its sweep beyond the frontiers within which it was intended to operate must be adopted keeping in view that a construction which exempts a person from its operation must be preferred to the one which includes him in it, in view of the penal nature of the statue. It is normally based on three components namely, language, purpose and discretion. It is the duty of the courts to accept a construction which promotes the object of the legislation and also prevents its possible abuse even though the mere possibility of abuse of a provisio