BAJRANG OIL COMPANY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are traders in the city of Gorakhpur. They have been granted licences under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). Edible Oil is one of scheduled commodities enumerated in the Order. Prior to the enforcement of the Order, the petitioners held licences for stocking edible oil under the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977 as amended by the order of 1981. Under the aforesaid Order, Gorakhpur was categorised as "B" city as its population was three lacs and more but less than ten lacs. On that basis, the petitioners were permitted to keep in stock a certain quantity of edible oil. Under the Order, Gorakhpur has not been categorised as "B" city. Naturally, the limit of stock of edible oil which can be held at a particular time by a licensed dealer has been reduced. The petitioners challenge the non -categorisation of Gorakhpur as "B" city as shown in Schedule III of the Order. Clause 2 (b) of the Order defines "B" city to mean a city specified as such in column 2 of Schedule III. Schedule III has two columns. The first column contains category "A" cities having population of ten lacs and above. The second contains a list of the cities under the heading category "B" cities having population of three lacs and more but not more than ten lacs and capital city of the State. Six cities are mentioned in this category. They are: Agra, Varanasi. Allahabad, Meerut, Bareilly and Lucknow.

(2.) IN paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is averred that in the year 1981 Gorakhpur city had a population of more than three lacs. This averment has not been denied in the counter -affidavit. This averment is corroborated by the fact under the 1977 Order, as amended by 1981 Order, even the Central Government had accepted the position that the city of Gorakhpur had a population of three lacs and more but less than ten lacs. It is thus apparent that on or before 31st August, 1989, when the order was enforced, the population of Gorakhpur city was three lacs and more. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that while drawing up Schedule III Gorakhpur city had been left out from category "B" on account of some mistake or due to an inadvertence.

(3.) THE rule of interpretation of Statutes, where relevant, apply to direct or subordinate legislation alike. In the field of interpretation there is mutual dependence of the Courts and the draftsman. "Naked usurpation of legislative power" is beyond the bounds of the judiciary. Nonetheless, judges, while applying Statute law, some times make a minor inroad in the legislative field. However a maiden area or a sphere untouched by the legislature cannot be encroached upon by the judiciary. Also, an intentional omission by the legislature or its delegate cannot be corrected by judges. Likewise, an interpretation which may lead to a situation where it can be said that the legislature has omitted some thing from the Statute should be eschewed. In other words, casus omissus (the omitted case) should be avoided while discerning the legislative intent.