CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPN Vs EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD

CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPN. V. EAST INDIA,HOTELS LTD.

(1994) 5 SCC 690

FACTS

The East India Hotels Limited (the company) (Respondent 1) owns and runs “Oberoi Grand” a five star hotel, in the city of Calcutta. The hotel had three restaurants within its premises called the Moghul Room, the Polynesia and the Princes. Initially, the licence fee was Rs 250 per annum per restaurant. The said fee was increased from time to time. The Corporation, by an order dated 22-3-1982, increased the licence fee to Rs 15,000 in respect of each of the places of amusement/recreation under Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. Retaliating, the company challenged the increase of the licence fee to Rs 15,000 before the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE

The issue prevalent in the current scenario was whether the company was required to obtain licences and pay a licence fee to run the aforementioned restaurants according to the Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.

RULE

Section 443 of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 states that “No person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Commissioner in this behalf, keep open any theatre, circus, cinema house, dancing hall or other similar place of public resort, recreation or amusement: Provided that this Section shall not apply to private performances in any such place.”

DECISION OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

The Petitioners contended before the learned Single Judge that the corporation cannot fix more than Rs 250 for licence fee according to the Section 218 read with Schedule IV to the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. which the learned single judge respectfully rejected. They also contended that there was no valid order made by the Corporation and no opportunity of hearing afforded to the company before enhancing the licence fee. Such contentions were also respectfully rejected.

DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH

The division bench referred the principles for the applicability of the rule of ejusdem generis from the judgments of this Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana and Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise. It examined that “theatre, circus, cinema house, dancing hall” have been specifically mentioned within the expression “other similar places of public resort, recreation or amusement”. After the application of principles of ejusdem generis, it concluded that general words are intended to have a restricted meaning in the sense that “other similar places” must fall within the class enumerated by the specific words.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court observed that the Section 443 of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 was clear and unambiguous. It clearly mentions that a theatre, circus, cinema house, dancing hall or “other similar place” of public resort, recreation or amusement cannot be run without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of the Corporation. Therefore there was no need for the learned division bench to rely on the rule of ejusdem generis in this case.
2. This Hon'ble court aimed at resolving the question in consideration i.e. whether the three restaurants provided in the facts were similar to any of the instances ascertained in the Section 443 of the act. It observed that it wasn't disputed that the restaurants provided piped and instrumental music in the evenings and had a dance floor allowing its customers to dance.
3. It defined the meaning of a dancing hall as a place where a dancing floor is provided and live orchestra or music in any other form is played to entertain the guests who wish to come on the floor and dance and stated that a dancing hall cannot operate without the licence under Section 443 of the act. It observed that just because dancing is provided in a place where posh eating is also provided doesn’t make it any different from a dancing hall where drinks and food is invariably served. Hence it was concluded by this Hon'ble court that the restaurants run by the company were places similar to the dancing halls and were places of public amusement covered by the provisions of Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.

RELEVANT THEORY

The word ‘ejusdem generis’ means ‘of the same kind or nature’. The rule of ejusdem generis is that where particular words are followed by general words, then the general words should not be construed in their widest sense but should be held as applying to objects, persons or things or the same general nature or class as those specifically enumerated, unless of course, there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose. To put it in a slightly different language, where general and special words, which are capable of analogous meaning are associated together, they take colour from each other and the general words are restrained and limited to a sense analogous to the less general. The doctrine of ejusdem generis should not be invoked (i) where the intention of the legislature is clear; (ii) where it would result in disregarding the plain language of the statute; (iii) where a perusal of the statute as a whole indicates that the legislature intended the general words to go beyond the class specially designated; (iv) where the specific things enumerated have no common characteristic and differ greatly from one another (v) where the particular words embrace all objects of their class so that the general words must bear a different meaning from the particular words or be meaningless.