STATE Vs. GOPALKRISHNA NELLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The parties are referred to as arrayed in W.A. No. 1959 /1989.

(2.) The Government of Karnataka by its order No. HUD 352 TMD 79 Bangalore, dated 5th of June 1981 accorded sanction to the proposal of Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Shimoga, to grant the Site No. 23 /A measuring 47' x 60' in Mission Compound Area in lieu of site No. 11 measuring 57'x 100' in Hosamane Extension.

(3.) This exchange by the Municipal Commissioner was in favour of the third respondent G. Panchaksharan. Aggrieved by this, the first respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 16722/81. The principal contention before the learned single Judge was that the procedure set out in Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules 1966 (in short 'the Rules') has not been followed. No doubt that takes within it, sale, lease or auction. Nevertheless, having regard to the Legislative intention, it must be so interpreted as to include exchange as well, otherwise the objects of the salutary provision like Rule 39 would be rendered nugatory. In opposition to this, on behalf of the Municipality, the Government as well as the party G. Panchaksharan, it is urged that there is a vital distinction between sale and exchange as laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Motor and General Stores (P) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 200. Where, therefore, the Legislature has, only used the words sale, lease or auction, in the guise of interpretation the scope of rule cannot be enlarged. Further, 'sale' is entirely different from an 'exchange', the former involves a price while no such price is contemplated in the case of exchange. The Legislature must be attributed its wisdom when it has chosen to deal with the scope of Rule only to sale, lease or auction.