THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARDS versus M/S. FANCY FOOD AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 25-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, KERALA FISHERMEN'S 
A 
WELFARE FUND BOARDS 
v. 
M/S. FANCY FOOD AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 25, 1995 
B 
[R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Kera/a Fishermen's Welfare Fund Act, 1985: Sections 2(d), 3 and 4. 
Fishermen--Scheme for welfare of---Constitution of fund foT'-Liability C 
to pay contribution-Fish expoTters-Purchasing fish processing and expolt-
ing-He/d expolters are dealers liable to pay contribution--A person dealing 
in fish meet held a dealer in fish. 
Words and Phrases : 'Processing'-Meaning of 
Statutory Interpretation : Social Welfare Legislation-interpretation D 
of-Should be constrned so as to advance the object. 
Constitution of India, 1950: ATtic/e 39. 
Kera/a Fishermen's Welfare Fund Act, 1985-0bject of-field it is in E 
fuTtherance of ATtic/e 39. 
The State of Kerala enacted the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund 
Act, 1985 which provided for constitution of a fund for promotion of 
welfare of fishermen in the State of Kerala. Under the provisions of the 
Act the persons liable to contribute towards the fund were specified. p 
Further, the authorities were also empowered to determine the amount 
from persons liable to contribute after making inquiry and after giving 
every person liable to pay constitution an opportunity of hearing. However, 
without affording any opportunity to the fish exporters the authorities 
determined that they were liable to pay 1 % of their gross sale as contribu-
tion towards the Fund. The respondent, exporters of fish, assailed the G 
orders before the High Court. Their case was that they were not purchasing 
raw fish but were purchasing finished goods and doing several processes 
before making it export worthy. Therefore, they were not liable to con· 
tribute as dealer under the Act. The High Court allowed their petitions 
and set aside the assessment orders. 
H 
785 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Against the decision of the High Court, the Fishermen's Welfare 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Board preferred appeals to this Court. 
On behalf of the respondent-exporters it was contended that the fish 
and meat are two different commodities and they being exporters of fish 
meat were not within the purview of the Act. 
Disposing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The respondents who are exporters and have been process-
ing fish after purchasing it from agents in the form of deshelled fish, or cut 
fish or head and tail removed, are 'dealers' within the meaning Section 4(2) 
read with Section 2(d) of the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Act, 1985. 
The assessing authorities shall determine the amount payable by them after 
affording opportunity of hearing to them. (795-H, 796-A-B] 
2. The definition of'dealer' in Section 2(d) is a definition in a welfare 
legislation directed towards promoting the welfare of fishermen in the 
State. The objective of the Act being in furtherance of directive principles 
of Constitution under Article 39, its provisions have to be construed so as 
to advance the objective of enactment. It would, therefore, be in consonance 
with the objective of the Act to give it purposive construction so as to 
achieve the objective of enactment The endeavour in such legislation should 
be to give it expansive rather than restrictive construction. (792-A, 793-C] 
3. Section 2(d) is in two parts, one declaratory and other expan-
datory. When the legislative device adopts such method the intention of 
widening the scope is apparent. It should be construed broadly and the 
Court should not make 'inroads in it by making etymological excursions'. 
Read plainly and simply the provision clearly applies to any person 
carrying on business of buying and selling fish in the State. An exporter 
who buys after the fish has been cleaned or deshelled or its head and tail 
removed is within the broad sweep of carrying on business of buying and 
selling fish in the State. Use of expression 'in the State of Kerala' before 
the expression 'the business of buying and selling' enlarges the ambit by 
extending it to any or every person who carries on the business in the State. 
An exporter who purchases fish either from fishermen directly or from 
agents who purchase, clean and then sell it, is a person who carries on 
business of buying fish. And since he exports he is a seller of fish. The 
legislative intention to apply the provisions of the Act to such persons is 
-
~ 
r 
~ ' 
' 
-,-
·' ....). 
--r 
.A 
j 
"! 
\ 
\ 
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, KERAL
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.