FebmaryS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

SuBBA RAO •• l,-This appeal by special kavc is against the ,Judgment ancl Ordt·r dated ~ovember Hi, 1960, of the High Court of .Judi cat. Ure at Caleu lta diomissing the petition filed hy the appellant under S11bha I ao J. The C'aicutta GllS Comparry (Proprietary) Ltd.· v. The State of West Bengal Subba Rao J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 3 Art. 226 of the Constitution, and it raises the con stitutional validity of the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960, (W.B. Act XV of 1960), hereinafter called the "impugned Act". In 1946 Messrs. The facts that have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The Oriental Gas Company was originally constituted by a deed of settlement dated April 25, 1853, by the name of the Oriental Gas Company, and it was subsequently registered in England under the provisions of the English Joint Stock Companies Act, 1862. By Act V of 1857 passed by the Legislative Council of India, it was empowered to lay pipes in CaJcutta and its suburbs and to e:x:cavate the streets for the said purpose: By Acts of the Legislative Council of India passed from time to time special powers were .conferred on the said Qompany. Soorajmull Nagarmull, a firm carrying on business ·in India, purchased 98 per cent of the shares of the iaid Oriental Gas Company Limited. The said firm floated a limited liability Company named the Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Limited and it was registered office at registered in India with its Calcutta. On July 24, 1948, under an agreement entered into between the Oriental Gas Company, and the Calcutta Gas Company the latter was appointed the manager of the former Company in India for a period of 20 years from July 5, 1948. The Oriental Gas Company is the owner of the indu.strial undertaking, inter alia, for the pro duction, manufacture, supply, distribution and sale of fuel gas Calcutta. The Calcutta Gas Company, by virtue of the aforesaid a.rrangement, was in charge of its general management for a period of 20 years for remuneration. The West Bengal Legislature passed the impugned Act and it received the assent of the President on October 1, 1960. On October 3, 1960, the West Bengal Government issued three notifica tions~the first declaring that the said Act would come into force on October 3, 1960, the second con t~inin~ the rqle~ fr~II\e<l 1:\Ilder t4e Act. and t4e ) \ Tl:1 C4lculfo GaJ Conpan.'1 ( fr•prietary l /.td. v. Th, Stau of n· 1st Bental Sutba Ra1 J. 1 ~ 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. third specifying October 7, 1960, as the date with effect from which the ~tate Government would take over for a period of five years the manage ment and control of the undertaking of the Oriental Gas Company purposes of, and in accordance with, tho provisio11s of the said Act. i.e., the Calcutta Gas Company, The appellant, filed a petition under Art. 226 of tho Constitution in the High Court for West Bonga! at Calcutta for appropriate writs for restraining the State Goyern mont from giving effect to the said Act and for quashing the said notifir.ations. Respondents I to 4 to the petition wore the St.ate of West Bengal and thti concerned officers, anrl respondent 5 was the Oriental Gas Company Limit!'<!. In thP p<'tit.ion, the appellant contested the constitutiowil validity of the Act on ,·arious grounds, an<l in the counter affidavit, the contesting respondents i.e.. respon dents 1 to 4, sought to :;uotain its validit.y and also questioned the maintainability oft-he petition at tho instance of the appellant. Ray,,)., gave the follow- ing findings on the contentions rnised bcforo him: (I) Tho appellant has no legal right to mn.intain the petition; (2) the appellant <:annot question the vn.liditJ of th<' Act on t,hc ground that its proYisions infringed his fundumcnt'11 rights uncler Arts. 14, I!) and 31 in view of Art. 31A(l}(b) of the Cnnstitu' tion; (3) the West Bengal LegiHlat.ure had the Legislative competence to pa~s the impugm·d Act by virtue of 1,nt r.v 42 of List HI of the :;eventh Schedule to tho Constitution; (4) entry 2ii of List TI also confers sufficient authMily and power on the State Legislature to make li>ws affecting gas and µas work ; and (!i) even if the Act. i!leidentally trnnches upon any produetion 1rnpect, th<: pith and substance of the legislation is iras ancl ~:t'·work withiu tho meaning of entry 25 of List II. The l~arnccl ,Judge~ ·rcjcotcd. all tho contentions of the appellant and dismissed tho petition by his order <lated No,·em- bcr 15, 1960. Hence the appeal. The Calcutt11 Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State of l'Vest Bengal Subba Bot J. I ) 3 s.c.:R. the said power passed SUPREME dOURT REPORTS Learned Attorney-General, appearing for the appellant, has repeated before us all the contentions, except that relating to fundamental rights, which. his client had unsuccessfully raised before the High Court. His contentions may be summarized thus : ( 1) The finding of the High Court that the appellant has no locus sf, andi to file the petition cannot be sustained, as under the inpugned Act the appel lant's legal rights under the agreement entered in to by it with the Oriental Gas Company on July 24, 1948 were seriously affected. (2) Under Art. 246 the Constitution Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I : Parliament in exer cise of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, by virtue of entry 52 of said List; the two entries in List II, namely, entries 24:and 25, cannot sustain the Act, as entry 24 is subject to the provisions of entry 52 of List I; and entry 25 must be confined to matters other than those covered by entry 24, and, there fore, the West Bengal Legislature is not Competent industry. regulating to make a law ( 3) Assuming that the State Legislature has power to pass the Act by virtue of entry 25 of List II, under Art. 254(1) of the Constitution the law made by Parliament, namely, the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, shall p~evail, and the State Legislature, n.amely, extent ofrepugnancy. And (4) the view of the High Court that the validity of the Act could be sustain ed under entry 42 of List III is wrong, as under the impugned Act the State only takes over the management of the Company and manages it for and on behalf of the Company, whereas the concept of requisition under the said entry requires that the State shall take legal possession of property of the person from whom it is requisitioned, on its own be half or on behalf of a petitioner other than the owner thereof. impugned Act be void law made the gas 1962 The Cclcutla Gas Compan,;· (Prop1itlary} /Jd. Tiit Stal~ of H1,..rt Btngal Subba Rao .!. I 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. The learned Advocate-General of 'Vest Bengal, and Mr. Sen, who followed him, seek to sustain the validity of the impugned Act not onl.v nnd('r entry 25 of List II but also under entries 33 and 4~ uf List TH of the Sev(•nth Schedule the Constitution. ·They further cc ntend that the· ap1wllant was constituted as agent under the said agrcl'ment i>nd thi>t, as its rights were preserved by s. 4 of the impugned Act, it has no locus stand; to file the petition under Art. 226. The first question that falls to be considered is whether the appellant has lows standi to file tho petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The argument of le&rnod counsel for the rPspondenl~~ is the appellant was only managing induHtry and it had proprietary therein and, therefore, it could not maintain, the application. Article 226 confers a very wide powor on the High Court to issue directionH and writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enfor cement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. It is, thPrefore, clear 1 hat persons other than those claiming fundamental right can also approach the eourt seeking a reliefth'"rc under. The Article in terms docs not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder ; but it is implicit in tho exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. In The Swte of Ori-~8a v. illadan Gop"l Runyta( ')this Court has ruled that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercisn of jurisdiction of the court under Art. 226 of the Consti. tution. In Chiranjit La/, Chowrlhuri v. The l.:nion of {wlu1 ('), it has been held by this Court. that the legal right that can be enforced under Art. :l2 must orc!inarily be tho right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the court for relief. We do not see any reason why a different principle should apply in the case of a (I) (1952] s C.R. 28. (2) (195-0J s.c.R. 869. 1962 The 0 arcutea Gas company. (Proprietary) Ltrl. v. The State ·of West. Bangal Suhba Rao J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution .. The right that can be enforced under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the peti tioll.er himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto thi'J rule may have to be relaxed or modified. The question, therefore, is whether in the present case the peti tioner has a legal right, and whether it has been in· fringed by the contesting respondent.s. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated July 24, 1948, with respondent No. 5 in regard to the management of the Oriental Gas Company. Under the agreement, the appellant was appointed as Manager and the general management of the affairs of the Company was entrusted to it for a period ofJ!O years. The appellant would receive thereundf'_ by way of remuneration for its services, (a) an office .allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem, (b) a commissron of IO per cent, on the net yearly profit of the Company, subject to a minimum of Rs. 60,000/· per year in the of or inadequacy of profits and (c) a commission of Re. I/- per ton of all coal purchased and negotiated by the Manager. In its capacity as Manager, the appellant-Company was put in charge of the entire business and its assets in India and it was given all the incidental powers necessary for the said management. Under the agreement, therefore, the appellant had the right to manage the Oriental Gas C0mpany for a period of 20 years and to receive the aforesaid amounts toward its· remuneration for its services. Section 4 of the impugned Act reads: of absence "With effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years thereafter,- (a) the undertaking of the Company shall stand transferred to the State Govern mfclnt for the purpose of management and control ; · ) > • . ) 1962 Tht Caladla Gas Companl (l'rofJritlarJ) l.Jd. v. Tit Stal< of W11t Bengal Sub6a Raa J. 8 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [1962] StJl>l'. 'b) the C Jmpany and its agents, includin01 managing agents, if any, and servant shail cease to exercise management or control in relation to the undertaking of thl' Company; I c) all contracts, excluding any contract or contracts in respect of agency or manag ing agency, subsisting immediately before the appointed day and affecting the under taking of the Company shall cease to have l'ffoct or to be enforeeable against the Company, its agents or :lny person who was a surety thereto or had guaranteed the performance thereof and shall be of ai; full forre and effect against or favo~· of the State of West Bonga! and shall be enforceable as fully and effec tively as if instead of the Company the State of West Bengal had been named therein or had boon a party thereto:" Under tho said section, with effect from the appoint ed day and for a period of five years th<!reafter, the management of the Company shall stand transferred to the State Government, and the Company, its agents and 8ervants shall cease to exercise manage ment or control of the same. l'.nder d. (c) of the section, the contracts of agency or managing agency aro not touched, but all the other contracts cease to have effect against the Company and are enforce able by or against the State. It is not necessary in thiA case to decide whether under the said pgree ment the appellant was constituted as agent or managing agent or a servant of the Oriental Gas Company. Whatever may be its character, by reason of s. 4 of the impugned Act, it was deprived of certain it posse8Sed undei: the agreement. Under the agreement, the the Orit•ntal appellant had the right to manage Gas Company for a period of 20 years and llut under receive remuneration for. the Bame. legal rights ~ 1962 The Calcutta & as Company ( ProprietaTy) Ltd. v. The Siate of West Bengal Subba Rao J, 3 S.d.R. SUl>REMlll COUR1' RlllFORTS 9 y s. 4 of the impugned Act, it was deprived of that right for a period of five years. There was cert'.linly a · legal right accruing to the appellant under the agreement and that was abridged, if not destroyed, It is, therefore, impossible by the impugned Act. to say that the legal right of the appellant was not infringed by the provisions of the impugned Act. In the circumstances, as the appellant's personal right to manage the Company and to receive re muneration therefor had been infringed by tho pro visions of the statute, it had wcus standi to file the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. To appreciate the rival contentions in regard to the other points, it would be convenient and necessary to notice briefly the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, hereinafter called the "Central Act.", and the impu gned Act. The Central Act was passed, as its long . title shows, to provide for the development and regulation of certain industries. Under s. 2 of the Central Act, it is declared that it is expedient in the publio interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule. Under beading 2 of the First Schedule, item (3) is "fuel gases-( coal gas, natural gas and the like)". "Industrial undertaking" is defined to mean any undertaking pertaining to a scheduled industry carried on in one or more factories .by any person or authority including Government ; and / "factory" is defined to mean any premises, includ ing the precincts thereof, in any part of which a is. being carried on or is manufacturing process ordinarily so carried on. Section 9 authorizes the Government to levy and collect a cess from the industries : Chapter III provides for the regulation of scheduled industries : section 15 empowers the Government to make or cause to be made a full and complete investigation of the affairs of any schedu led industry, if it is of opinion that there is a likelihood of substantial fall in the volume of ) ) .J /962 Tlia Calcutta (}as Comparrp (Propritl·iry) Ltd. v. Tht Statt of JV est Rtn.,al Subb11 Rao J. iO SUPR~~IE COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. production or a marked deterioration in the quality of any article produced, or there is likely to bo a ri~e in the price of any article produced, therein, or that an undertaking is being managed in a manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concer- ned; and s. HJ authorizes the Central Government, after making the said investigation to issue such directions to the industrial undertaking or undertak- ings concerned as may he appropriate in the circum stances in order to regulate the production of any article or articles and fi:ic the standards of produc- tion, to require it to take such steps to stimulate the development of the industry, to prohibit from resorting to any act or practice which might reduce its production capacity or economic value, or to control the prices or regulate the distribution of articles produced therein· Chapter IIIA confers power on the Central Government to assume management or control of an industrial undertaking in cortain cases: section J8A enables it to htke con- trol of an industrial undertaking, ands. 18H(l), in~r al·ia, provides that on the issue of the notified order nuder s. 18A, all persons in charge of management, including persons holdin" oJfice as managers or direc- tors of the industrial und~rtaking immediately before the issue of the notified order shall he deemed to have vacated their offices as such, aud that any contr~ct of managem•rnt between the industrial undertakmg and any managing agf, nt or any director th~rcof holding ofEce as such immediately before the issue of the notified order shaJI be deemed to have been · terminated and the person or persons appointed under th~ Act shall be empowered to take over the management and condu'.•t the affairs of the Company in the place of the previous management. · qiapter IIIB enables tho Central Government for securmg the equitable distribution and availability a.t fair prices of any article or class of articles relatahlf_' to any .ii hanrecetd · industry, for controllmg and ugsdlciuJg the supply, distribution, and price, of the 1 The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. Tht State of West Ben~a! Subba Rao J. "" .. • :I s.C.R. SUPR)!jM:i): COURT REPORTS 11 said articles. Section 20 of the A ct declares that aft.er the commencement of·the Act, it shall not lie competent for any State Government or. a local authority to take over the management or control of any industrial undertaking under any law for the time being in force which authorizes any such Government or local authority so to do. Briefly stated, the Central Act declares that it is expedient in the public interest to take under its control the scheduled industries; its provisions are designed to provide for the development and regulation of the said industries; it enables the Central Government, for the purpose of promoting and rcgulatini2' the said industries, to investigate into the affairs of an undertaking, to regulate its production, supply and distribution, and, if necess<irv, to take over the management of the unctertaki;;g. the quality thereof, for supply Coming to the impugned Act, its provisions are confined only to the affairs of the Oriental Gas Cnmpany Limiled. Its long title shows that it was passed to provide th·, taking over for a limited period of the mnnagement, and control, and the subsequent acquisition of the undertaking of the Oriental Gas Compa, ny Limited. Its preamble says i.t was thought expedient to provide for increase of the production of gas and improving industrial undertakings, hospitals and other wel to local authorities for street fare institutions, lighting and to the public in general for domestic that purpose to provide consumption and for for the taking over for a limited period of the management and control, and the subsequent acquisition, of the undertaking. Under s. 4, with effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years tP,ereafter the undertaking of the Company shall stand transferred to the State Government for the purpose of management and control. Under s. 6, the undertaking of the Company shall be run by the State Government and shall lte used and 1962 Tiu Calcutta Gas Company (Propri11a1y) Ltd. •• TM Stal< aj Wt!I lhngal Subba Rao J. 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1962] stJt>i>. therein and utilised by the State Government for purposes of production of gas and supply thereof to public institutions mentioned for other purposes. Sections 8 l}nd 9 provide for payment of compensation for taking over the said management. It would be seen that the impugned Act intends to serve the same purpose as the Central Act, though its operation is. confined the Oriental Gas Company. Both tho Acts are conceived to increase tho production, quality and supply pertaining to an industry, and for that purpose appropriate Government, if necessary, to take over the management for industry concerned to achieve .The impugned Act occupies a part of the field already covered by the Central Act. The question is whether the State Legislature has constitutional competency to encroach upon the said field. the said purposes. to enable regulating At this stage it would be convenient to read the relevant Articles of the Constitution. Aricle 246. · (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Union List"). (3) Subject to clauses (I) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the mattem enumerated the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "State List"). in List II List I-Union List ·Entry 7. Industries declared by Parlia ment by law to be necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 13 · Entry 52. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. List I I -&ate List Entry 24. Industries subject provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List I. Enti·y 25. Gas and gas-works. Entry 26. Trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions. of entry 33 of List III. Entry 27. Production, distribution of goods subject to the provisions of entry 33 of List III. supply 1962 The Calcutla Gas Oompan) (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal Subba Rao J. ,. • Before construing the sa.id entries it would be useful the well settled rules of to notice some of interpretation laid down by the Federal Court and this Court in the matter of construing the entrie~. The power to legislate is given to the appropriate Legislatures by Att. 246 of the Constitution. The entries in the three' Lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation : 'they demarcate the area over which the appropriate Legislatures can· operate. It is also well settled that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries. But some of the entries in the different List or· in the same List may overlap and sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the dnty of this Court to reconcile the entries and bring about harmony between them. When the question arose about reconciling entry 45 of List I, duties of excise, and entry 18 of List II, taxes on the sale of gonds, of Government of India Act, 1935, Gwyer, C. J., in ln re The Central Provinces and Berar Act No. X fV of 1938 (1), observed; ' "A grant of the power in general terms, standing by itself, would no doubt be construed in the wider· sense; bnt it may be qualified (!939) F. C.R. IB, 42, 44. (!) 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 1962 T ht C:oir11fl.1 GaJ (,'nn, pany (P1ot,1ino•;) l.:d 1 v. ·r1,, ._<..'taze of JYcir B~Tl'.fcJ.l by other express pro,·isions the same enactment, by the implication of the context, and even by considerations arising out of what appears scheme of the. Act.,. to be the general Si.bba Uao J. The learned Chief J usticc procr eded to state : " ......... an endra n>ur must be made to sohc it, as the ,Judicial Committee have said by having recourse to the context and scheme of the Act, and a rceonciliation attempted betwmm two apparently conflicting jurisdictions hy reading the two entries together and hy interpreting, and, whrre ncne~sary, mod(fying the language of the un" by that of the oth<>r. If indeed i;ueh a rc'bonciliation should prov" impossible, then. will the nm1·obstantc clau~e operate and the federal power prevail." then, and only The Federal Court in that ease held th:it the entry '"taxes on the Hale of good"" was not covered by the entry "duties of cxcisi" :rn<l in coming to tl1~t conclusion, the learned Chid' .Ju~ticc observed: gen<' ml conetru<:t ion pow Pr, "Here are two scpJ.rate enactments, "ad1 in one aApect conferring the pown to impose a tax upon goods; and it woultl nccord with sound principle8 of ta kc th ·1(. which extends to tlH' whole of India, a8 Rubject to an oxcc1•t ion the_ particular power, that which extends t;o t.he province<! only. It is not rerhaps strictly accnratc to speak of the provincial pow!'r as being excepted· out of the federal power, for thn two are independr, nt. of one another aucl the underlying exist sirle by side. But principle in the two cases must Le the same, that a general power ought not to ho> so 9onstn~ecl as to make a nullit,Y of a particular created by 1982 The r:alcutta Gas Comp'.my (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State "of West Bengal Sttbha Rao J. 3 s.c.R.' SUPREME COURT REPORTS 15 power !Jonferred by the same Act and operating in the same field, when by reading the former in a more restricted sense effect can be given to the latter in its ordinary and natural meaning." The rule of constru.ction adopted by that decision for the purpose of harmonizing the two apparently conflicting entries in the two Lists would equally apply to an apparent conflict between two entries in the same List. Patanjali Sastri, J., as he then was, held in·State of Bombay v.Narothamdas J ethabai(') that the words "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts'' in item one of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, must be understood in a restricted sense excluding from their scope "jurisdiction and powers of courts" specifically dealt with in item 2 of List II. In the words of the learned Judge, if such a construction was not given "the wider construction of entry I would deprive entry · 2 of ail its content and reduce it to useless lumber." This rule of construction has not been dissented · from in any of th0 subsequent decisions of this CDlirt. It may, therefore, be taken as a well settled rule of construction tJiat every attempt should be made to harmonize the apparently conflicting entries not only of different Lists but also of the same List and to reject that construction which will rob onu of the imtries of its entire content and make it nugatory. With this background let us construe the aforesaid entries. There are three possible con stri:ctions, namely, (1) entry 24 of List II, which pJ,"ovidcs for industries generally, covers the indqs trial aspect of gas and gas works leaving entry 25 to p:·ovide for other aspects of gas and gas-works; industries, (2) «ntiy 24 provides generally for and «ntry 25 carves out of it the specific industry (!) [1951] S. C.R. ,,1, - , • 1 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. The Caltutta Gas Com>any ( /l, oprUtat_)) I.Id. v. The Stak of II est IJ,nga/ Sul)ba Rao J. of gns and gas-work•, with the result that the indus try of gas and gas-works is excluded from entry 24 ; and(::!) the industry of gas and gas-works falls umfor both the entries, that is, there is a real over lapin!! of the said entries. Having regard to the tho widest scope aforesaid principle, while giving to both the entries, we shall adopt tho interpreta tion which reconciles and harmonizes them. ilXpresRion The first question that oecurs to one's mind is, what is the meaning of tho cxprt>ssion "indus try" in entry 24 0f List JI ? IR it 1lifferent from entry 52 tho meaning of that of List I ? Whatnver may be its eonnotation, it must, hear t.hn ~amo meaning in both the entries thr two entries are so interconnected that to them conflicting or different meanings given would snap the connection. Entry !?4 is subject t.o the proviRions of entrv 7 and entrv 52 of .List I. Entry 7 of List I provides for indu~tries declared by Parliament by law to be nr1•cssary for thr pur pose of defence or for the prosrcution of war; and entry .~2 for industries t hP control of which by the Union is declared bv Parliam11nt by law to be expedient in tho pn hlfr intcrPst. Therefore ordinarilv indn•tr:v is in the field of State legis. lation ; but, if Parliament by law makes a reluvant declaration or declarations, "the industrv or tries so declared would bo tR ken off "its field and passed on to Parliament. Tn the premises. cxpres~ion "industry" in all the ent.ries must bP. given tho same mea.ninp-. Now, "hat is tho mean· In Ch. Tika Ramji v. ing of word "induRtrv"? State nf ntm· Pradesh (1), the •·xprcssion "industries" . is defined to mean the pn, cess of manufacture or production and <loo• not include matcrialR used in the industr\' or the distributior, of the products of the industry. Tt was contl•nded ·that tho word "industry" was a word of wide , (I) [1956) S.C.R. 393, 4 t 1962 The Calcutta Gas ·eompa,,, ( Proprieta1j) 'Ltd. v. 'The.:BMtepf West B~ngal Subba Rao J.- • .. - I • - 3s.c.:R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS import and should be construed as inchtding not only the process of manufacture or production but also activities antecedent tliereto such as acquisition of raw materials and subsequent there· to such as disposal of the finished products of that industry. But that contention was not accepted. It is not necessary in this case to attempt to define the expression "industry" precisely or to state exhaustively all its ingredients. Assuming that the expression means only production or manu its sweep pro facture, would duction or manufacture, of gas? Entry 24 in List II in its widest amplitude takes in all industries, including that •of gas and gas-works. So too, entry 25 of the said List comprehends gas industry. There ie, therefore, an apparent conflict between In the two entries and they overlap each other. such a contingency the doctrine of harmonious construction must be invoked. Both the learned this principle. While the learned counsel accept Attorney-General seeks entries by giving the widest meaning to the word "industry" so as to include the industrial aspect of gas and gas-works and leaving the other aspects to be covered by entry 25, learned counsel for to reconcile respondents seeks the contesting them by carving out gas and gas-works in all its a.spects from entry 24. If industry in entry 24 is interpreted to include gas and gas-works, entry 25 may become redundant, and in the context of the succeeding entries, namely, entry 26, dealing with trade and commerce, and entry 27, dealing with production, supply and distribution of goods, it will be deprived of all its contents and reduced to "useless lumber''. If industrial, trade, produc tion and supply aspects are taken out of entry 25, the substratum of the said entry would disappear : in that event we would be attributing to the authors of the Constitution ineptitude, want of precision and !autology. On the other hand, •the to harmonize both 196! TIN CokuUa Gos camp..., (P,optietary) Ltd. v. Tiu Stal, of West Bengal Subba R<UJ J. 18 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] 8ttl>P. alternative contention enables entries 24 a.nd 25 to operato fully in their rc8pectivc fields : while entry 24 covers a ve'rv wide field, that iR, the field of the entire industry ·in the State, entry 2ii. dealing with gas and gas-works, ca.n be confined to a Hpccifi" industry, that is, the gas industry. There may be many good reasons for the authors of the Constitu tion giving separate treatment to gas and gas-works. If one can surmis(., it may be that, as the industry of gas and gas· works was confined to one or States and was not of all-India importance, it was carved out of entry 24 and given a separate entry, as otherwise if a declaration by law was made by Parliament. within tho mrn~ning of ;•ntry 7 or entry ii2 of List I, it would be taken out of the legi~lativo power of States. Be it as it may, the express intention of the Constitution is to treat it, in nUJmal times, as a state subject and it is not in the province of this Court to ascertain and scrutinize the reasuns It is suggested that this interpreta· for doing so. tion would prevent Parliament to make law in respect of gas and gas-works during war or other national emergency. Apart from the relevancy of such a consideration, the apprehension has no justification, for under Art. 249 Parliament enabled to take up for legislation any matter which is specifically enumrrated in List II whenever the Council of States resolves by two.thirds majority that such a legislation is necessary or expedient in interest. So too, under Art. ~50 the national Parliament can make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in if a. Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. Article 2ii2 authorizes the Parliament to legislate for two or more States, if tho House8 of the Legislatures of those ::itatcs give their eonRcnt to the said course. Subject to s~ich Pmcrgency or extra-ordinary powers, the entire industry of gas and gas-works is within exclusive legislative competence of a State. It iH, therefore, dear that the scheme of harmoniou" con· struction suggested on behalf of the State gives full the State List, 19t,S The Calcutta GOs Company (Proprietor}) !,tr!. v. The State of West Benzal Subba Rao J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 19 respective fields, while and effective scope of operation for both the entries suggested by the appellant learned counsel for deprives entry 25 of a 11 its content and even . it redundant. The former interpretation therefore, be accepted in preference to· must, the latter. In this view, gas and-gas works are within the exclusive field allotted to the States, On interpretation the argument of the learned Attorney-Genera]. that, under Art. 24.6 of the Consti tution, the legislative power of State is subject to that of Parliament ceases to have a,ny force, for the gas industry is outside the legislative field of Parlia ment and is within the exclusive field of the Legis lature of the State. We, therefore, hold that the impugned Act was within the legislative competence of the West Bengal Legislature and was, therefore, validly made. In this view the alternative argument advanced on beh<tlf <A' the State, namely, that the impugned Act was made by virtue of entry 33 and entry 42 of List III need not be considered. We should not be understood to have exproosed our view one way or other on this aspect of the case. Nor is the contention of learned Attorney General that s. 20 of the. Central Act would still be valid vis-a-vis gas industry has any force. Under s. 20 of the Central Act, "After the commencement of this Act, it shall not be competent for any State Govern ment or a local authority to take over the industrial management or control of any undertaking under any law for the time being in force which authorizes any such Govern ment or local authority so to do." the view the Legisla We have expressed ture of a State has the exclusive. power to make law in respect of gas industry by virtue of entry 25 of List II, and that entry 24 does not comprehend gas industry. As we have indicated earlier, the ex pression "industry" in entry 52 of List I bears the ... • • \~ 1961 7'/k CalcuUa Gas CompanJ ( Prop.-iiia.J) Ltd. Y, TM Stal1 of Wut Bt119.J Suhbo Rao J, 20 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS (l!J62] SUPi>. in so f.ir as same meaning as that iu entry 24 of List II, with the result that the said expression in entry 5 .'. of If so, List I also does not take in a gas industry. it follows that the Central Ad, purported to deal "ith the gas industry, is beyond the legislative competeneo of Parliament.. Section 20 is an integral part of the Central Act, and if it is taken out of the Act, it can only operaw in v:.cuum. The said section was introduced for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Central .<\ct. It was also enacted by virtue of entry i'::! of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If the Act was constitutionally void in so far as it pur ported to offect the gas industry, for the aforesaid reasons, s. 20 would equally be void to tho same extent for the same reasons. Jn this context two decisions of this Court, namely, Raylrnbir Singh v. Slaw of Ajmtr( 1), and State of Bihar v. C111ei;h ./ha('! may usefully be decisions this Cour.t held that ancillar.i;. pro1•isiona enacted for carrying nut the objects of a main Act would fall with the main Act on the ground that they were enacted only to subserve the purpose of the main Act. l:lcctiun ::!O, therefore, will not. avi1il the appellant to question the validity uf the State action. consulted, for · Jn the result, we agree with the High Court that the impugned Act was within the legislatiV•l competence of the West Hcngal State Legislature and was validly made. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of respondents l to ,1. Appeal dil,·mi8sed. [I9;9j Supp. (I) S.C.R. 478. (l) (2) A.l.R. 1962 S.C. 50.