BOWERS V. GLOUCESTER CORPORATION (1963) 1 Q.B. 883

 

BOWERS V. GLOUCESTER CORPORATION

 (1963) 1 Q.B. 883

FACTS

For a number of years, the Respondent was licensed as a hackney carriage by the Watch Committee. On february 1962, the watch committee revoked the licence of the Respondent exercising their powers under     Section 50 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847. The Respondent was guilty of one offence against the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, wherein he permitted the use of a vehicle without a hackney carriage licence. He was also convicted of four offences (of a different character) against the licensing authority’s by-laws.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current scenario was whether there existed power to revoke the licence of the Respondent.

RULE

Section 50 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 was referred to in the judgement

JUDGEMENT OF THE RECORDER

It was held by the recorder that Section 50 of the             Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 was ambiguous and observed that the Section being a penal Section should be more favourable to the Appellant. The recorder held that it had no power to revoke the licences.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court held that the recorder came to a wrong conclusion. It observed that the recorder’s wrong conclusion was a fault of first impression. The Section perceived the meaning of the word “offence” as “any offence” and it was deemed to be unnecessary that there should be two convictions for two identical offences. It was based on the principles of general construction. The court further observed that a provision could only be ambiguous in the case of a penal provision, that once the matter is resolved in favour of the citizen and the proper canons of interpretations were also applied, the matter was still left in doubt.
2. The court also observed that in the current scenario, “any” should be given the wide meaning that it normally bears. It also examined the mischief aimed at the act which showed that the strict control was kept on the taxi cab drivers and proprietors was also taken into account alongside the absurdity arising from the mischief that was aimed at whether a man could show himself to be unfit for being a taxi driver by committing 50 different offences and yet not have the licence revoked as he always committed a different offence.
3. Finally this Hon'ble court held that the term “any '' is perceived as it is. There clearly existed power to revoke the licence and the matter should be sent back to the recorder.           

RELEVANT THEORY

The construction of a statute according to its letter is a construction which takes the language used in its literal sense. When a strict construction is appropriate, the particular case to come within the purview of the statute must be within both its letter and its spirit and reason. The literal meaning of a statute is that which the words express, taking them in their natural and ordinary sense, that is, giving to words of common use their commonly accepted meaning and to technical words their proper technical connotation. The spirit and reason of the law, on the other hand, is nothing more than the legislative purpose, that is the purpose with which the law was made or the reason why the legislators enacted the statute. Strict construction of a statute confines its operation to cases which are clearly within the letter of the law as well as within its spirit and reason. It is not enough that the letter of the law may include the given situation unless the spirit and reason of the law also include it. The framers of a law are presumed to have in mind a reasonably consistent and intelligible plan or scheme for achievement of the legislative purpose. Further, according to Sutherland, a strict interpretation would depend on multiple factors such as-

1. With reference to former law
2. With reference to the rights and persons affected
3. With reference to the letter or language of the statute
4. With reference to the purpose and object of the statute.