Appeal No 89 of 1960
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 12 1957 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No 15 of 1956
557 M C Setalvad Attorney General for India V L Narasimhamoorty section N Andley J section Dadachanji Rameshwar Nath and P L Vohra for the appellants
R Gopalakrishnan and T M Sen for the respondents
March 24
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J
With a view to enable him to assess cotton cess payable by the appellants under the Indian Cotton Cess Act 1923 hereinafter called the Act the Deputy Commissioner District Chitradurga Mysore State purporting to exercise powers under section 6 of the Act called upon the managing agents of the appellants by letter dated January 13 1956 to submit in the prescribed form a statement showing the total quantity of cotton consumed or processed in the factory The appellants declined to carry out the requisition and filed a petition in the High Court of Mysore for a writ of mandamus prohibition or other appropriate writ direction or order restraining the Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga and the State of Mysore from collecting assessments under the Indian Cotton Cess Act XIV of 1923 in enforcement of the order dated January 13 1956
The sole ground urged in support of the petition was that the appellants were bound to furnish returns under the Act to the Collector who alone could assess the cess and the Deputy Commissioner not being a Collector within the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of the Collector under the Act the demand for returns was unconstitutional
The High Court rejected the petition and against that order this appeal is preferred with certificate of fitness granted by the High Court
The area in which the mill of the appellants is situ
ate was originally part of the Indian State of Mysore
The State of Mysore became a Part B State within the Union of India on the promulgation of the Constitution on January 26 1950
The Act was one of the many enactments of the Indian Legislature applied 588 to the State of Mysore by the Part B States Laws Act 3 of 1951
The Act provides for the levy of a cess on cotton and for effectuating that purpose imposes by section 6 a duty upon the owner of a mill to submit to the Collector monthly returns of cotton consumed or processed in the mill
The authority to assess cess is by section 7 of the Act vested in the Collector which expression in the Act means in reference to cotton consumed in a mill the Collector of the district in which the mill is situated or any other officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of a Collector under this Act
The powers of the Collector under the Act can therefore be exercised by the Collector of the district in which the mill is situate or by the officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of a Collector
It is common ground that the Central Government has not issued an order appointing the Deputy Commissioners in the Mysore area to exercise powers under the Act
The power to assess cotton ceases in the Mysore State area can therefore be exercised by the Collector and no other officer
The expression Collector of the district which is a component of the first part of the definition is not defined in the Act
But the X of 1897 defines Collector as meaning in a Presidency town the Collector of Calcutta Madras or Bombay as the case may be and elsewhere the Chief Officer in charge of the revenue administration of a district
The revenue administration of a district under the Mysore Land Revenue Code is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and he is the chief officer in charge of the revenue administration of a district
The Deputy Commissioner is therefore a Collector within the meaning of the 
Counsel for the appellants however contends that the X of 1897 was not extended by the Part B States Laws Act to the State of Mysore and therefore the definition of Collector under the cannot be requisitioned in aid to interpret the expression Collector used in the Act
But the argument proceeds upon a fallacy as to the 559 true nature of the 
By section 3 of that Act in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the   unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context the various expressions therein set out shall have the meanings ascribed to them by that Act
The effect of section 3 is to incorporate it as it were as an interpretation section in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the 
Whenever the Central Act or Regulation made after March 11 1897 is enacted the becomes statutorily a part thereof and by its own force it applies to the interpretation of every such enactment
Its vitality does not depend upon any territorial extension
Existence of a definition of the expression Collector in the Act in section 2a is not necessarily indicative of an intention that the is not to apply to the interpretation of that expression used in that Act
The first part of section 2 cl
a of the Act is in truth not a definition at all it merely states that the Collector of the district in which the mill is situate is the Collector for the purpose of the Act
For determining who the Collector is one has to go to the 
It is said that bodily importing the definition of Collector in the into section 2a of the Act results in tautology because by the definition in the a Collector outside the Presidency towns is an officer in charge of the revenue administration of a district
But by the definition in the  the quality of the power and the duties of the officer concerned are indicated whereas by the use of the expression of the district in the definition of Collector in section 2a of the Act the officer in charge of the revenue administration of the district within whose area the mill is situate is indicated
There is in our judgment no tautology and no ground for not applying the definition of Collector in the to the interpretation of the Act
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants declined to carry out the requisition by the Deputy Commissioner to submit certain returns on the ground that tinder the Indian Cotton Cess Act 1923 which Act Se came applicable to the State of Mysore by the Part B States Laws Act 1951 the Collector alone could assess the cess and the Deputy Commissioner not being a Collector within the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of the Collector under the Act the demand for return was unconstitutional
The case of the appellant was that the  was not extended by the Part B States Laws Act 1951 to the State of Mysore and therefore the definition of Collector under the could not be requisitioned in aid to interpret the expression Collector used in the Act
Held that the effect of section 3 of the  was to incorporate it as it were an interpretation section in all the Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the 
Whenever a Central Act or Regulation made after March II 1897 was enacted the became statutorily a part thereof and by its own force applied to the interpretation of every such enactment
Its vitality did not depend upon any territorial extension
Section 2a of the Indian Cotton Cess Act 1923 does not really give the definition of Collector and for determining who the Collector under the Act is one has to go to the