LexU.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. versus KISAN UPBHOKTA PARISHAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
U.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. A v. KISAN UPBHOKTA PARISHAD & ORS. DECEMBER 7, 2007 B 1. (A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Agriculture/ Agriculture Implements: Animal driven vehicle-Purchase subsidy-Claim of-Held: C Ordinary meaning of the word/expression in common parlance is accepted unless it is defined otherwise in the statute/order-Popular meaning overpowers etymological meaning-In common parlance agriculture implements are tools used by human beings with their hands/legs/driven by animal power-However, Animal Driven Vehicle D - ' used for carrying agriculture produce cannot be regarded as agriculture implement to claim purchase subsidy in terms of the Government Order since in common parlance it would not be regarded - by people as a agriculture implement-Interpretation of Statute- Mimansa Rules of lnterpretation--Sutra <O~<iF'ISJ4~<f&-Application E of-Government ofUttar Pradesh order dated 20. 11. 1996 on purchase subsidy on agriculture implements. Words & Phrases: 'Animal driven vehicle '-Meaning of in the context of agriculture F implements. The question which arose for consideration before this Court was as to whether the Animal Driven Vehicle, ADV carts are also agricultural implements so as to claim subsidy on its purchase from the Corporation in terms of the State Government Order dated G 20.11.1996 and also letter dated 5.3.1999 issued by the Cane Commissioner of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 1113 H 1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. One word can have several meanings, and several words can have the same meaning (synonyms). [Para 10] [1117-A] 1.2. No doubt the word 'implement' can have several dictionary 8 meanings. However, in interpretation it is well settled that ordinarily the meaning of the word or expression in common parlance or in common use should be accepted, unless the statute or order in which it is used has defined it with a specific meaning. There is no definition of the word 'implements' in the G.O. of the State Government dated C 20.11.1996.[Para11][1117-C] Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edn.; Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn. and Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd edn. 2005, referred to. D 1.3. In the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation, one of the principles is that the popular meaning overpowers the etymological , meaning. [Paras 12 and 13] (1117-D, E] Mimansa Rules of Interpretation by K.L. Sarkar, referred to. E 1.4. The reason behind this principle is that language is a tool of communication between human beings, and hence that meaning should be given to a word which helps communication between people. If the speaker of a word uses it in one sense but the hearer understands it in another sense, there will be a communication gap. Hence that meaning should be attributed to a word which everyone F would understand as it has acquired a special meaning in common > parlance. [Para 15] [1117-G; 1118-A] 1.5. An Animal Driven Vehicle cannot be said to be an agricultural implement. For the obvious reasons that in common G parlance implements are usually regarded as tools used by human beings with their hands (and sometimes with their legs), or driven by animal power. Thus, a plough which is driven by oxen or horses would be regarded as an agricultural implement. Similarly, a hoe or a spade would be agricultural implements. However, a bullock cart H which is used for carrying the agricultural produce from the farm to • ~ U.P.STATEAGROINDUSTRIALCORPORATIONLTD.v. 1115 KISANUPBHOKTAPARISHAD [KATJU,J.] the market or the sugar factory cannot be regarded as an agricultural A implement, because in common parlance it would not be regarded by people as an implement. [Para 16) [1118-B, CJ Mis. D.H Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., AIR (1991) SC 1992, referred to. B . \ EDITORIAL NOTE: The Court observed that the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation were the traditional principles of interpretation laid down by Jaimini whose Sutras were explained by Shabar, Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakar, etc. These Mimansa Principk11 were regularly used by the great jurists like Vijnaneshwar (author of c Mitakshara), Jimutvahana (author ofDayabhaga), Nanda Pandit (author of 'Dattak Mimansa') etc. whenever they found any conflict between the various Smritis or any ambiguity or incongruity therein. There
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.