MAHESHWARI FISH SEED FARM versus T. NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 16-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.-
MAHESHWARI FISH SEED FARM 
A 
v. 
T. NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. 
APRIL 16, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
a 
Electricity Laws: 
Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act. 
1978-Sections 3 & 4-Schedule to the Act detailing tariff rates-State C 
Government issuing notification under S. 4 for amendment of the Schedule-
Consequently low tension supply of electricity for agriculture becomingfree-
The Act, either in the main part or in the Schedule not defining "agriculture"-
Appel/ants-fish farmers claiming benefit under the notification-Held, the 
benefit was rightly denied to them as fish farming i.e. pisciculture cannot be D 
treated as agriculture-For interpreting the Act and the notification issued 
thereunder, "agriculture" has to be read in contradistinction with 
"aquaculture"-Pisciculture is a branch of aquaculture and not agriculture. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Term of common parlance-Meaning to be assigned-Definitions given 
in other enactments cannot be freely used. 
Words not defined in a statute-Have to be understood in their natural, 
ordinary or popular sense. 
Words and Phrases-"agriculture "-.Meaning of in the context of Tamil 
Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978. 
Notification dated 19-11-1990 was published amending the Schedule 
E 
F 
to the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy 
Act, 1978. Consequently, supply of electricity on low tension for purpose G 
of agriculture became free i.e. became leviable with 'no charge'. Appellants 
claimed benefit of the notification submitting that they were engaged in 
fish farming, i.e. pisciculture, which is only a specie of agriculture and were 
therefore entitled to benefit of the said notification. But benefit was denied 
285 
H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A to the appellants on the ground that pisciculture could not be treated as 
agriculture. High Court also held that pisciculture is not agriculture. Hence 
the appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: l. The Act, either in the main part, or in the Schedule 
detailing the tariff rates, does not define agriculture. It is a settled rule of 
interpretation that the words not defined in a statute are to be understood 
in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. (290-F, G) 
Wilma E. Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, 322 US 607, referred 
C to. 
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, Ninth 
Edition, 2004, p.95, The new Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. I, p;156; Oxford 
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology; The Oxford English 
D Dictionary, VoL VII. p. 904 and Mcgraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and 
Technology, 6th Edition, Vol.7, referred to. 
· 2. Agriculture, need not be kept confined in its meaning to the 
production of grain and food products for consumption of human beings 
alone, it can be extended as comprising within its meaning all the products 
E of the land involving human labour but then it is the producing Capacity 
of the land which must necessarily be found as involved in any activity to 
amount to agriculture. (293-D) 
F 
Commissioner of income-tax West Bengal, Calcutta v. Benoy Kumar 
Sahas Roy, AIR (1957) SC 768, followed. 
3. The relevant entry in the Act, as its historical background show, 
was intended to provide electricity at concessional rates or free of any 
charge to the farmers by dividing them into classes such as small farmers 
and other farmers. A farmer would be an agriculturist in the traditional 
sense and narr.ow meaning of the term. A person engaged in aquaculture 
G or fish farming would not be called a farmer. Neither the legislature while 
enacting the schedule to the Act as it originally stood nor the State 
Government issuing the notification amending the schedule can be 
attributed with the intention that they had intended to make available 
electricity at concessional rate or without charge to aquaculturist whose 
H activity is purely commercial. It cannot be said that in the circle of 
-, ... 
MAHESHW ARI FISH SEED FARM v. T. NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD 
287 
agriculturists fish farming is understood as agriculture. [294-A-C) 
A 
4.1. For the purpose of interpreting the Act and the notification 
issued thereunder, the term agriculture has to be read in contradistinction 
with the term "aquaculture'. Pisciculture is a branch of aquaculture. 
Pisciculture is not agriculture. [294-D] 
B 
4.2.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.