Case: State Of Rajasthan Vs. Leela Jain

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these: The respondent Mrs. Leela Jain is the owner of a plot of land in the city of Jaipur. Under the relevant provisions of the City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943, she was required to submit to the Municipal Council plans for erecting constructions on her plot, obtain their approval and make the constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plans. She submitted her plans, which were sanctioned but it was stated that during the course of her constructions she made certain variations from the plan as approved by the Municipal authorities. A neighbour of hers, one D. D. Goswami alleged that the variations made by the respondent in carrying out the constructions of her house prejudicially affected him. On the basis of his representation the Municipal Council initiated an inquiry as a result whereof a report was submitted to it in which a finding was recorded that the respondent had effected variations from the sanctioned plan. The President of the Municipal Board considered the report and passed an order on September 19, 1956 directing the respondent to stop the unauthorised constructions immediately. It was stated that notwithstanding this order the respondent continued the constructions and completed them. When this was brought to the notice of the Municipal authorities, an order was passed that action be taken against her under S. 210 of the City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943. This section provides that where an owner or occupier was required to execute any work under the provisions of the Act and a default was made in the execution thereof, the Municipal Board might cause such work to be executed and the expenses incurred thereby to be recovered from the person in default. It is not very clear from the record what exactly was the work which the respondent was directed to carry out and which she failed to execute. The only thing that is necessary to be noticed is that there existed an order under S. 210 passed on September 26, 1956. Representations were made by the respondent to the President of the Municipal Council and thereupon, by an order dated October 24, 1956, the President ordered that the case against the respondent be compounded by her paying to the Municipal Council a sum of R. 101 as fine. It is stated that the respondent paid this fine, but the fact of her having done so is apparently a matter of some controversy to which it is not necessary to refer.3. Shri D. D. Goswami, the respondents neighbour, felt aggrieved by the order compounding the violation of the building bye-laws. No appeal was provided by the Jaipur Municipal Act from such an order, but he moved the State Government to set aside that order and the latter purporting to exercise jurisdiction under the proviso to S. 4 of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950 (to which we shall hereafter refer as the Act) set aside the order of the President of the Municipal Council. The respondent thereupon invoked the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash this order of the State Government. Though several contentions were raised by the respondent in support of her plea regarding the invalidity of the impugned order of the State Government, the learned Judges of the High Court confined their attention to one of the points raised that the order of the President of the Municipal Council which was final and not subject to appeal under the City of Jaipur Municipal Act was not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under the proviso to S. 4(1) of the Act. The learned Judges of the High Court accepted this contention and acceded to the Writ Petition and passed an order as prayed for. The appellant-State having obtained special leave from this Court, has preferred this appeal.

Reasoning:
It is obvious that this is not the function of the proviso to S. 4 (1) of the Act, for the operative words in the main part of S. 4(1) prohibit all appeals from the appellate orders of the Commissioner. The primary purpose of the proviso now under consideration is, it is apparent, to provide a substitute or an alternative remedy to that which is prohibited by the main part of S. 4(1). There is, therefore, no question as to the proviso carving out any portion out of the area covered by the main part and leaving the other part unaffected. What we have stated earlier should suffice to establish that the proviso now before us is really not a proviso in the accepted sense but an independent legislative provision by which to a remedy which is prohibited by the main part of the section, an alternative is provided. It is, further obvious to us that the proviso is not co-extensive with but covers a field wider than the main part of S.4 (1). If its function were only to provide a remedy alternative to a further appeal from the orders of the Commissioner and no more and that is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent, the words of any order passed by...... a Municipal authority should have no place in it. If this submission has to be accepted, the proviso would have to be read deleting the words "or other Municipal authority". As already pointed out, this rejection cannot be done on any accepted principle of statutory construction, for the words have meaning and effect can be given to them without the same conflicting with tiny other operative provision of theargument though plausible does not appear to us to be sound or maintainable on any proper construction of the words employed. If the learned Counsel is right, the clause would read "The Government may.......... call for any record of any case........... of any appealable order passed by a Commissioner or by a Municipal authority and may pass such orders..........." This would show how impossible it is to read the word order as confined to appealable orders which is what the learned Counsel suggests as the proper construction of the proviso, for it would at once be seen that there are no appealable orders of the Commissioner, since S.4 (1) has in terms prohibited all appeals. As the words orders of are not repeated before the words a Municipal authority, you cannot read word order as meaning orders declared final by this Act when applied to the orders of a Commissioner and as meaning "orders subject to appeal under a Municipal Law" in relation to the orders of a Municipal Authority. Besides, it would be some what anomalous that S. 3 should provide the forum for appeals which lay under the Municipal Act and in regard to the same matter, i.e., those in regard to which a Municipal appeal would lie, make a parallel provision for a revision by the State Government without clearer words. We do not consider it necessary to examine this matter further or to examine the other anomalies which this construction might involve, because we are in this case concerned with a non-appealable order of a Municipal authority. So far as they are concerned, such orders would be in exactly the same situation as regards their finality as the orders of a Commissioner, which by reason of the positive provisions of S. 3 (3) and S. 4 (1) are expressly declared final by the Act. It appears to us that the more reasonable construction is to construe the words orders of a Municipal authority as including final orders not subject to a Municipal appeal which would fall into the same category as appellate orders of a Commissioner which are declared final by the Act.16. It is, no doubt, true that so to construe these words could empower a State Government to interfere in Municipal affairs and this on an extensive scale and enable them to pass orders in revision, on matters which under the relevant Municipal law were final and not subject to any appeal. That is an aspect which appealed greatly to the learned Judges of the High Court and as we have pointed out earlier, forms the main reasoning on which they have arrived at the construction of the proviso. Though we are not unmindful of the consequences and implications of this construction, we consider that it would not be proper to take these factors into consideration where the words of the statute are clear and what we have stated earlier should suffice to show that, in our opinion the opposite construction is not reasonably open without doing violence to the language of the enactment either by omitting the words "or other Municipal authorities", altogether or by rewriting the section so as to achieve the desired result. We do not conceive this to be the function of a Court of construction but that it must be left to other organs of Government. We, therefore, consider that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in holding that the State Government had no power to entertain the revision against the order of the President of the Municipal Council and to quash it on thatour opinion, the case has to be sent back to the High Court for all the other objections being considered on their merits as may arise on the pleadings and in law. We are not to be understood as having expressed any opinion as to whether any such point arises on their merits.With due respect to the learned Judges we do not find it possible to agree that it is permissible to omit or delete words from the operative part of an enactment, which have meaning and significance in their normal connotation merely on the ground that according to the view of the Court it is inconsistent with the spirit underlying the enactment. Unless the words are unmeaning or absurd, it would not be in accord with any sound principle of construction to refuse to give effect to the provisions of a statute on the very elusive ground that to give them their ordinary meaning leads to consequences which are not in accord with the notions of propriety or justice entertained by the Court. No doubt, if there are other provisions in the statute which conflict with them, the Court may prefer the one and reject the other on the ground of repugnance. Surely, that is not the position here. Again, when the words in the statute are reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, the object and purpose of the statute, a general conspectus of its provisions and the context in which they occur might induce a Court to adopt a more liberal or a more strict view of the provisions, as the case may be, as being more consonant with the underlying purpose. But we do not consider it possible to reject words used in an enactment merey for the reason that they do not accord with the context in which they occur, or with the purpose of the legislation as gathered from the preamble or long title. The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Besides, if one strictly applied this rule of interpretation that the Act did not intend to make provision for nothing except a forum for appeals the whole of the proviso even where it provided for revisions against the orders of a Commissioner, must be rejected as travelling beyond the long title and the preamble, for in neither of them is reference made to revisions. We do not, therefore, consider that in the case of the Act under consideration, it would be possible to reject the words "or a municipal authority" by reference to the preamble and the long title.