Appeal No 328of 1958
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 12 1956 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No 15 of 1955
B Sen P K Chatterjee and PK Bose for the appellants
Dipak Datta Choudhri and P D Menon for respondent No 2 1961
August 16
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
This appeal raises the question of construction of the expression telegraph line in section 342b of the Act 9 of 1910 hereinafter called the  Act
The first respondent Laxmi Narayan Chopra carries on business as motor coach builder under the name and style of Chopra Motors having his factory at 139 Regent Park Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta In the said factory a number of Universal Electric Motors are operated for the purpose of working electric drills
Within a distance of 100 feet of the said factory there is a Post and Telegraph Wireless Station which besides functioning as a coast station communicating with ships at sea handles public messages in large volume from Darjeeling Shillong Gauhati Agartala and New Delhi
In or about Aril 1953 severe electrical interference was observed in the said station and experts attributed the same
to local induction from the first respondent s factory
On October 13 1953 the Senior Electric Inspector issued a notice to the first respondent to show cause writing as to why an order under section 342b of the Act read with notification No 4193 COM dated August 1 14 1929 requiring discontinuation of the operation of the Universal Electric Motors in the 149 said factory premises should  not be made
After some correspondence on December 1 1953 the Senior Electric Inspector made an order under a 342b of the Act requiring the first respondent to remedy the injuries affecting the lines used for wireless telegraphic communications at the Wireless Receiving Centre
On January 12 1954 the first respondent filed a petition in the High Court at Calcutta under article 226 of the Constitution pray for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate mug writ directing the appellants to withdraw and cancel the said order and to forbear from giving effect to the same
The petition came up for hearing in the first instance before Sinha J of that Court
It was contended interalia that there was no telegraph line in the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station within the meaning of s342b of the Act and therefore the notice issued by the Senior Electric Inspector was without jurisdiction
Sinha J rejected the contention and dismissed the petition
But on appeal a division bench of that High Court consisting of Mookerjee A C J and H K Bose J accepted the contention of the first respondent and issued a writ as prayed for
The present appeal is directed against the said order
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the definition of  telegraph line in the  Act 13 of 1885 which is included by reference in the Act is wide enough to take in electric lines used for the purpose of wire
less telegraph and that the Appellate Bench of the High Court went wrong in invoking the old maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege in construing the provisions of a modern state
The first respondent is ex parte but in this case hisviewpoint is forcibly expressed in the judgment of the High Court under appeal
To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary at the outset
to read I the relevant provisions of the Act and the Telegraph Act
150 The Section 34
2 If at any time it is estab lished to the satisfaction of the appropriate Government bthat any electric supply lines or other works for the generation transmission supply or use of energy are attended with danger to the public safety or to human life or injuriously affect any telegraph line the appropriate Government may by order in writing specify the matter complained of and require the owner or user of such electric supply lines or other works to remedy it in such manner as shall be specified in the order and may also in like manner forbid the use of and the supply of energy to any electric supply line or works until the order is complied with or for such time as is speci fied in the order
Section 2
In this Act expression
 defined in the  or in the  have the meanings assigned to them in either of those Acts 
The Section 3
1 telegraph means an electric galvanic or magnetic telegraph and includes appliances and apparatus for making transmitting or receiving telegraphic telephonic or other communications means of electricity galvanism or magnetism
4telegraph line means a wire or wires used for the purpose of a telegraph with any casing coating tube or pipe enclosing the same and any appliances and apparatus con nected therewith the purpose of fixing or insulating the same
A combined reading of the relevant provisions of 151 the two Acts may be expressed thus  Telegraph line means a wire or wires used for the purpose of an appliance or apparatus for receiving telegraphic or other communications by means of electricity
If it is established to the satisfaction of the appropriate Government that any works for the generation transmission supply or use of electrical energy injuriously affects such a telegraph line the said Government is authorized to take appropriate action unders 34 of the Act
It is not disputed that in the said factory a number of Universal Electric Motors are operated for the purpose of working electric drills and it is also established that the interference with the reception of messages at the Telegraph Wireless Station is attributable to local induction from the said factory
But the dispute between the parties centers round the question whether the said interference with the reception of messages at the said Station injuriously affects any telegraph line within the meaning of section 34 of the Act
The Telegraph Wireless Receiving Station clearly comes within the definition of telegraph in the Telegraph Act
The Telegraph Act was passed in 1885
Telegraph then meant an electric galvanic or magnetic telegraph and appliance and apparatus for telegraphic telephonic or other communications by means of electricity galvanism or magnetism
At that time wireless telegraphy or radio had not been developed
In the year 1914s
31 of the said Act was amended and the following words were inserted after the words apparatus for   making transmitting or receiving
With the result that after the amendment receiving of communications by means of electricity was included in the definition
A wireles
receiving station certainly receives communications by means of electricity and therefore it
is telegraph within the meaning of said definition
Though the said station may be within the definition of telegraph the question still remains 152 whether there is a telegraph line for under the definition to be a telegraph line there shallbe a wire or wires used for the purpose of an apparatus receiving communications by means of electricity Under the heading wireless telegraphy in
the Encyclopedia Britannica Vol 28 a brief but adequate description of a wireless telegraphy is given thus A wireless transmitter is a device for producing rapid oscillatory motion of electri city which is the origin of electric waves
Such electric waves are detected at a wireless receiving station b the effects of the rapidly varying electric and magnetic forces Which constitute the electric wave motion
 Are any wires used for the purpose of the apparatus receiving the said communications  In the Encyclopedia Britannica some of the receiving stations ate described and it shows that wires are invariably used as aerials for receiving the said communications
In the present case  the Senior Electric Inspector filed an affidavit wherein he stated it was established to my satisfaction that the operation and use of the Universal drills during the working hours of the factory caused serious interference by induction to the existing lines as well as to the receiving apparatus containing wires which arewere expressly used for telegraphic communication at the said centre
 It is there fore manifest that wires are used for the purpose of the apparatus receiving communications that is wires are used not only for the aerial but ISO inside the apparatus
A wireless transmitter transmits sound as electromagnetic waves and the said waves are detected by the
aerial and fed into the receiving apparatus by wires
To put it shortly the wires of the aerial as well as of the apparatus are used for the purpose of the apparatus receiving communications
If so it follows Chit the receiving 153 appartus employs telegraph lines within the meaning of section 34 of the Telegraph Act
The High Court gave two reasons for rejecting the appellants  contention
The first reason is that the word line  in the expression telegraph line  connotes the existence of a defined channel of communication which has got a physical existence and that wireless telegraphy is dependent upon transmission through space of electric waves and that is not a defined physical channel
We cannot accept this reasoning for a telegraph line is not defined to mean a defined continuous physical channel from the point of transmission to the point of reception
The definition as we have pointed out is comprehensive enough to take in any wire used for the purpose of an apparatus for receiving communications by means of electricity
The second reason given by the learned Judges is that the expression  telegraph line as used in section 342b of the  has in the absence of any new definition in that Act to be given the same sense as the Legislature had intended in 1885 by the definition of that expression in the earlier Act
This reason is based upon the maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law
To state it differently in the year 1885 the Legislature could not have dreamt of the future discovery of wireless telegraphy and therefore could not have intended to use the expression telegraph line in a comprehensive sense so as to take in electric wires of a receiving station of wireless telegraphy
It is necessary to consider the scope of the said maxim in its application to the interpretation of modem statutes
In Craies on Statute Law 5th edn the said rule is explained in the words of Coke thus at p 77
154 This and the like were the forms of ancient Acts and graunts and the
ancient Acts and graunts must
be  construed and taken as the law was holden at that time when they were made The discussion ended with the following words at p 79 In Assheton Smith vs Owen1 Cozens Hardy L J said do not think that the doctrine of contenporanea exposition can be applied in construing Acts which are comparatively modern and the Court declined to apply the rule 1 to the interpretation of local Acts of 1793 and 1800
 In Halsbury s Laws of England 2nd edn Vol 32 it is stated in the context of telegraph legislation thus at p 4 The fact that new methods of telegraphy have been invented since the date of passing of the Acts containing the definition does not prevent the application of the Acts to such methods provided that they answer the requirements and fall within the terms of the definition In Sutherland s Statutory Construction 3rd
edn Vol 2 dealing with the said maxim the learned author states at p 508 as follows As a general rule it may be stated that legislative intent should be determined as of the time the legislation goes into effect
But surrounding circumstances and situations occurring after the enactment of the statute may be of great or even conclusive assistance in determining a meaning which was intended to be conveyed
Legislative standards are generally couched ill terms which have considerable breadth
Therefore a status may be interpreted to include
 circumstances or 1  213
155 situations which were unknown or did not exist at the time of the enactment of the statute
 Decided cases accepted the said liberal approach in construing modern statutes
In The Attorney General vs The Edison Telephone Company of London 1a telephone was held to be a telegraph within the meaning of the Telegraphs Acts 1863 and 1869 although the telephone was not invented or contemplated in 1869
Stephen T observed at p 254  Of course no one supposes that the legislature intended to refer specifically to telephones many years before they were invented but it is highly probable that they would and it seems to us clear that they actually did use language embracing future discoveries as to the use of electricity for the purpose of conveying intelligence The Privy Council in re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication in Canada  2 held that broadcasting fell within the m eaning of the expression in s92 of British North America Act1867 though at the time when that Act was made broadcasting was not in vogue
In The King V Brislan  ex parte Williams3 the question was whether a law of the Commonwealth Parliament with respect to radio broadcasting was one with respect to Postal telegraphic telephonic and other like services under section 15 of the Australian Commonwealth Act and the Court held that the words were wide enough to take in radio broadcasting
In James vs Commonwealth of Australia4Lord Wright has state the principle in felicitous language thus 1 2 3  4  641
156  the meaning of the words changes but the changing circumstances illustrate and illuminate the full import of that meaning
 This Court in construing the words sale of goods in Entry 48 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act 1935 accepted the aforesaid principle in The State of Madras V Gannon Dunkerley and Co Madras Ltd 1and restated it at p 416 thus The principle of these decisions
is that when after the enactment of a legislation new facts and situations arise which could not have been in its contemplation the statutory provisions could properly be applied to them if the words thereof are in a broad sense capable of containing them The legal position may be summarized thus The maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern
There is a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation
The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the Court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one namely what is the expressed intention of the Legislature
It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in static society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the future developments comprehended by the phraseology used
It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made
But in a modem progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware 1  157 of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about in social economic political and scientific and other fields of human
activity
Indeed unless a contrary intention appears an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations if the words are capable of comprehending them
We cannot therefore agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the maxim contemporanea expositio could be invoked in construing the word telegraph line in the Act
For the said reasons we hold that the expression  telegraph line is sufficiently comprehensive to take in the wires used for the purpose of the apparatus of the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station
In the result we set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the petition filed by the first respondent
The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances of the case without costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
Severe electrical interference was observed in a Post and Telegraphs Wireless Station which was traced to the respondent No 1 s factory where a number of motors were operated for the purpose of working electric drills
The Senior Electric Inspector issued a notice to the first res pondent to show cause as to why an order under s342 b of the Indian Electricity Act requiring discontinuance of the operation of the electric motors in the said factory should not be made
The first respondent challenged the said order by a writ petition contending inter alia that there was no Telegraph Line in the Posts and Telegraphs Wireless Station within the meaning of s342b of the Act
The High Court held firstly that the word line  in the expression telegraph line  connotes the existence of a defined channel of communication which has got a physical existence and that wireless telegraphy is dependent upon transmission through space of electric waves and that is not a defined physical channel
Secondly the expression telegraph line as used in section 34 2b of the Indian Elec tricity Act has in the absence of any new definition in that Act to be given the same sense as the Legislature had intended in 1885 by the definition of that expression in the earlier Act
This reason is based upon the maxim contemporaries exposition west optima et fortissima in lege contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law
The appellants contended that the definition of telegraph line in the  was wide enough to take in electric lines used for the purpose of 147 wireless telegraph and the High Court went wrong in invoking the old maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et fortisima in lege in construing the provisions of a modern statute
Held that the combined reading of the relevant provisions of the  and the  a Telegraph line is comprehensive enough and means a wire or wires used for the purpose of an appliance or apparatus for receiving telegraphic or other communications by means of electricity and it need not be a continuous physical channel from the point of transmission to the point of reception
A wireless transmitter transmits sound as electro magnetic waves and the said waves are detected by the aerial and fed into the receiving apparatus by wires
So the wires of the aerials well as of the apparatus are used for the purpose of the apparatus receiving communications
Thus the receivingapparatus employs telegraph lines within the meaning ofs3 4 of the Telegraph Act 1885
Held further that the maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which were comparatively modem The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one namely what is the expressed intention of the Legislature
In a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made and unless a contrary intention appeared an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations if the words are capable of comprehending them
The maxim contemporanea expositio could not be invoked in construing the word telegraph line in the 
Assheton Smith vs Owen 19061 Ch
179 Attorney General vs Edison Telephone Co of London 18806 Q B D 244 In re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication in Canada  The King vs Brislan
Ex parte Williams  and James vs Commonwealth of Austratia  referred to
State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley  Go
Madras Ltd   relied on 148