SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPECTOR Vs. LAXMINARAY CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question of construction of the expression "telegraph line" in S. 34(2)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910), (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) 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 April, 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 in writing as to why an order under S. 34(2)(b) of the Act, read with notification No. 4193-COM dated August 14, 1929, requiring discontinuation of the operation of the Universal Electric Motors in the said factory premises should not be made. After some correspondence, on December 1, 1953, the Senior Electric Inspector made an order under S. 34(2) (b) 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 Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate 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, inter alia, that there was no "telegraph line" in the Post and Telegraph Wireless Station within the meaning of S. 34(2)(b) 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.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the definition of "telegraph line" in the Indian Telegraph Act (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 wireless 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 statute. The first respondent is ex parte; but in this case his viewpoint is forcibly expressed in the judgment of the High Court under appeal.