Case: Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union Of India

2. Factual controversy lies in a narrow compass and is as follows:3. In both writ petitions challenge was to the selection of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 8737/2003 and 8739/2003 for retail dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short IOC) at different places. The appellants and writ-petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court were applicants for dealership and distribution-ship of various petroleum products. Challenge to the selection was on the ground that the selected persons were not eligible for selection on several grounds. One of the grounds highlighted was that their relatives already hold letters of intent for dealership or distribution ship of MS/HSD/Kerosene / LDO/LPG of another or same public sector oil company. So far as appellant in Civil Appeal No. 8739/2003 is concerned, it was pointed out that the selected persons father-in-law was already holding dealership. In the case of appellant in civil appeal no. 8737/2003 similar plea was raised. Successful persons took the stand that the person who was already holding dealership did not come within the enumerated prohibited category and, therefore, there was no illegality in the selection. The High Court, however, held that no doubt the terms and conditions of grant of dealership mention that if daughter-in-law holds dealership then the father-in-law is disqualified. A literal or narrow meaning should not be given and if the father-in-law holds a dealership, daughter-in-law is also disqualified. A literal interpretation need not be given to the requirement, but the intention has to be seen. It was observed that the intention of the prohibition criteria for awarding of dealership was that if a close relative is already holding a dealership, relatives of such persons should not be granted a dealership. If father-in-law is a close relation to the daughter-in-law reverse is also true and, therefore, the daughter-in-law is ineligible if the father-in-law had already a dealership. IOC and the selected persons have challenged the correctness of the judgments rendered by the High Court. Writ petitioner in Civil Misc. petition No. 24966/2003 has questioned correctness of High Courts order in Civil Appeal No. 8742/2003 on the ground that it had raised several other points to contend that the selected person was ineligible but the High Court did not refer to them. Originally, selected persons and IOC are appellants in other Civil Appeals.

Court's reasoning:
5. It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a stipulated condition which is a plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Similar is the position for conditions stipulated in advertisements9. While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemede legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process12. The golden rule for construing all written instruments has been thus stated: "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless than would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further" (SeeGrey vs. Pearson (1857 (6) H.L. Cas.61). The latter part of this "golden rule" must, however, be applied with much caution, "if", remarked Jervis, C.J., "the precise words used are plain and unambiguous in our judgment, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure. But we assume the functions of legislators when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise words used, merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal meaning"13. In the aforesaid background the High Courts judgment cannot be maintained and is set aside. However, writ petitioner in writ petition no. 24966/2000 has taken the plea that other grounds were highlighted in the writ petition to show as to how the selected person was ineligible. The High Court has not dealt with any other issue and has disposed of only on the ground that the father-in-law was holding dealership, thereby rendering daughter-in-law ineligible14. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of other issues raised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any other issue then those indicated above.