Case: Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd

by the High Court, we are of the view that serious infirmity was allowed to be crept into the process due to unwarranted and unjust dissection of Section 328(3) of the Act and import into the words meanings totally uncalled for and beyond their context, defeating to a great extent the very purpose and aim of enactment of the provision by the legislature. The statutory definition of the expression "sky-sign" ordains it to mean, any word, letter, model, sign, device or representation in the nature of an "advertisement", "announcement" or "direction", supported on or attached to any of the things specified upon or over any land or building or structure in a manner visible against the sky from some point in any street and to be also inclusive of all and every part of such pole, post, standard frame work or other support. It is also stipulated therein to include any balloon, parachute or other similar device employed wholly or in part for the purpose of any advertisement, announcement or direction upon or over any land, building or structure or upon or over any street. The main and salutary purpose of Section 328/328A is to regulate the installation/construction of signboards of the nature defined and envisaged therein to keep road margins and space above such margins not indiscriminately meddled with so as to effect the free movement and free flow of traffic, preserve the ecology and environment by averting and regulation to the extent required, ensuring, in public interest, adverse physiological and psychological impacts either directly or indirectly due to the use of neon lights/illuminations used for the installations. The provision for licensing is incidental and necessarily required to properly and effectively enforce the regulations and the levy and collection of fee also ultimately seem to achieve the same purpose. The statutory provisions seem to have been thus enacted with a laudable public purpose and the definition is also not only inclusive in nature but the enumeration of the various nature of fixtures, the manner and methods adopted therefor, as also the obvious and ostensible object of such fixtures/ installations found specified therein, under the scheme of things, are found to be with the intention of making the provision an all inclusive one to cover or rope in all possible things and not to operate in a manner to bring about any limitation on their scope, and that too to render the very provision otiose, redundant and meaningless.9. Coming to the ordinary meaning of the words noticed by the High Court, "Advertisement", "Announcement" and "Direction" used in the statutory provision under consideration, we find the High Court to have adopted a hyper-technical approach, altogether. In common parlance, "advertisement" means to make publicly known an information by some device and to draw or attract attention of public/individual concerned to such information. It need not necessarily be to sell only or solely for commercial exploitation. Likewise, "announcement" also normally means any and every effort or enterprise and attempts made to make known a thing or the existence of a thing openly or publicly. Similarly, the word "direction" in the context of users of the road or motorists on the road should invariably only mean, to show the way or path towards an object or point or indicate the route for a destination. A direction in a particular context may even be an instruction simplicitor to guide and need not always mean a command to obey or carry out implicitly only the instruction. In construing the provisions of a statute or the words or language used, it has been always considered essential for the Court normally to give effect to the natural or ordinary meaning of the words, keeping in view the subject matter with reference to which the words are used, without ascribing to words used any absolute meaning as if in vacuo or without reference to the context, particularly when such normal or ordinary understanding or construction conforms to and in consistent with the purpose or object of the legislation. The principles of Ejusdem Generis/Noscitur a sociis have no relevance to the case on hand and seem to have been over deployed, unnecessarily under scoring the actual a real meaning of the words in the context and purpose of their use in the statutory provision of the Act. 10. The indication given above by emphasis supplied to some of the words used in the provision in question as well as the words "in the nature" of an advertisement, announcement or direction would go to show that it is not a must to be that but is enough if its "in the nature of" that which is specified. The three words required to be construed cannot be said to admit of any one particular meaning alone but capable of being understood by their general or interrelated meaning suitable for the context. Consequently, we are not persuaded to affix our seal of approval to the manner and method of construction adopted by the High Court - both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In view of the above, we allow this appeal. The judgment under challenge cannot be sustained and while setting aside the same, we order the dismissal of Misc. Writ Petition No. 1380 of 1976 filed by the respondent in the High Court. 11. The consequences of our allowing the appeal and ordering the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent would result in the restoration of the proceedings instituted before the Criminal Court for prosecuting the respondent under Section 471 of the Act or with a liberty to institute or pursue the same further. The fact that the respondent succeeded before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench would at any rate go to show that the respondent had no culpable or guilty mind to violate or evade compliance and that the respondent seems to have entertained a genuine belief that they are not bound by the provisions contained in Section 328/328A of the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. Though, the relevant statutory provisions concerned are Section 328/328A of the Act, the issues raised before us have to be considered and decided mainly on the scope of the sub Section (3) of Section 328 of theThe learned counsel appearing on either side invited our attention, at considerable length, to the judgments of the High Court wherein the dictionary meaning of the words required to be construed came to be adverted to from Encyclopedia Britannica and the Words and phrases: permanent edition of West Publishing Company and it is unnecessary to repeat them once again, herein. Reference has also been made to the portions of the judgments where observations came to be made about the principles underlying the doctrine of "Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur A Sociis" and their relevance and application to the case on hand. The Principle underlying "Noscitur A Sociis" is that, two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning when are coupled together are to be understood as used in their cognate sense, taking, as it were, their colour from each other, that is, the more general is to be restricted to a sense analogous to the less general. The principle underlying "Ejusdem Generis" is applied when the statutory provision concerned contains an enumeration of specific words, the subject of the enumeration thereby constituting a class or category but which class or category is not exhausted at the same time by the enumeration and the general term follows the enumeration with no specific indication of any different legislative intention. This rule which normally envisage words of general nature following specific and particular words to be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified, also requires to be applied with great caution and not pushed too far so as to unduly or unnecessarily limit general and comprehensive words to dwarf size. Dehors the doctrine or maxim concerned useful in the matter of construction of a statute or its provisions the intent of the legislature cannot altogether be ignored and a construction which really subserves the purpose of the enactment must only be adopted than one which will defeat it and thereby ensure in the process that no part of the provision is rendered surplus or otiose.8. On a careful consideration of the approach and methodology of the construction adopted by the High Court, we are of the view that serious infirmity was allowed to be crept into the process due to unwarranted and unjust dissection of Section 328(3) of the Act and import into the words meanings totally uncalled for and beyond their context, defeating to a great extent the very purpose and aim of enactment of the provision by the legislature. The statutory definition of the expressionordains it to mean, any word, letter, model, sign, device or representation in the nature of an "advertisement", "announcement" or "direction", supported on or attached to any of the things specified upon or over any land or building or structure in a manner visible against the sky from some point in any street and to be also inclusive of all and every part of such pole, post, standard frame work or other support. It is also stipulated therein to include any balloon, parachute or other similar device employed wholly or in part for the purpose of any advertisement, announcement or direction upon or over any land, building or structure or upon or over any street. The main and salutary purpose of Section 328/328A is to regulate the installation/construction of signboards of the nature defined and envisaged therein to keep road margins and space above such margins not indiscriminately meddled with so as to effect the free movement and free flow of traffic, preserve the ecology and environment by averting and regulation to the extent required, ensuring, in public interest, adverse physiological and psychological impacts either directly or indirectly due to the use of neon lights/illuminations used for the installations. The provision for licensing is incidental and necessarily required to properly and effectively enforce the regulations and the levy and collection of fee also ultimately seem to achieve the same purpose. The statutory provisions seem to have been thus enacted with a laudable public purpose and the definition is also not only inclusive in nature but the enumeration of the various nature of fixtures, the manner and methods adopted therefor, as also the obvious and ostensible object of such fixtures/ installations found specified therein, under the scheme of things, are found to be with the intention of making the provision an all inclusive one to cover or rope in all possible things and not to operate in a manner to bring about any limitation on their scope, and that too to render the very provision otiose, redundant and meaningless.9. Coming to the ordinary meaning of the words noticed by the High Court, "Advertisement", "Announcement" and "Direction" used in the statutory provision under consideration, we find the High Court to have adopted aapproach, altogether. In common parlance, "advertisement" means to make publicly known an information by some device and to draw or attract attention of public/individual concerned to such information. It need not necessarily be to sell only or solely for commercial exploitation. Likewise, "announcement" also normally means any and every effort or enterprise and attempts made to make known a thing or the existence of a thing openly or publicly. Similarly, the word "direction" in the context of users of the road or motorists on the road should invariably only mean, to show the way or path towards an object or point or indicate the route for a destination. A direction in a particular context may even be an instruction simplicitor to guide and need not always mean a command to obey or carry out implicitly only the instruction. In construing the provisions of a statute or the words or language used, it has been always considered essential for the Court normally to give effect to the natural or ordinary meaning of the words, keeping in view the subject matter with reference to which the words are used, without ascribing to words used any absolute meaning as if in vacuo or without reference to the context, particularly when such normal or ordinary understanding or construction conforms to and in consistent with the purpose or object of the legislation. The principles of Ejusdem Generis/Noscitur a sociis have no relevance to the case on hand and seem to have been over deployed, unnecessarily under scoring the actual a real meaning of the words in the context and purpose of their use in the statutory provision of the Act.The consequences of our allowing the appeal and ordering the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent would result in the restoration of the proceedings instituted before the Criminal Court for prosecuting the respondent under Section 471 of the Act or with a liberty to institute or pursue the same further. The fact that the respondent succeeded before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench would at any rate go to show that the respondent had no culpable or guilty mind to violate or evade compliance and that the respondent seems to have entertained a genuine belief that they are not bound by the provisions contained in Section 328/328A of the Act.