MADANLAL MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

     MADANLAL MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.                                   A
                                    v.
                STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

                        NOVEMBER 28, 1989
                                                                              B
  [S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.)

     Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 2(a)
and Sch~du/e Item 41-Sheep hair-Whether covered by wool (Oon)" and
consequently agricultural produce.

      Words and Phrases: Wool (Oon)-Meaning of.                               c
      These writ petitions were filed by licencesed dealers who
manufacture woollen fabrics and blankets. They pnrchase sheep hair
and make them yarn for use in manufacturing the above items. The
challenge is against the insistence of the State Govt. to treat sheep hair
                                                                              D
as agricultural produce under the Punjab Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1961 and requiring the petitioners to obtain licence and
pay market fee for transactions in sheep hair.

       It has been contended by the petitioners that even though goat
hair and camel hair are included in the schedule, sheep hair is not
                                                                              E
included and hence sheep hair is not agricultural produce within the
meaning of the Act. As regards item No. 41, Wool (Oon) appearing in
the schedule, it was contended that wool is a manufactured, item of
sheep hair and not sheep hair itself and the word "wool" according to
its dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including
sheep.
                                                                              F
      Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court,

       HELD: 1.1 Item No. 41 of the schedule after the word "wool"
uses the word "Oon" also within brackets which indicates as to what
was really intended by the us of the word "wool". Indeed, in the Hindi
                                                                              G
version of the Act item No. 41 of the schedule uses tlieword "Oon" only
and does not at all use the word "wool". The raw-material out of which
a textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool. Not only the textile
fibre but also the soil under-coat of various animals including sheep has
itself been described as wool. Wool has almost invariably been used in
the context of sheep hair. [295G; 296A]                                       H


                                   293
    294         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

         1.2 Interpreting item No. 41 Wool (Oon) of the schedule in the
A light of the above, there seems to be no manner of doubi that the word
  "wool" has been used therein only in the sense in which the word
  "oon" is understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer in the
  popular sense namely that which people conversant with the word
  'Oon' would attribute to it. This intention is apparent from the
B circumstance that care has been taken to specifically include goat-hair
  and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the schedule. Had wool (oon) been
  used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense, it would have automati-
  cally included goat-hair and camel-hair and the specific inclusion of
  Goat-hair and Camel-hair at item No. 75 and 76 would have been
  wholly unnecessary. Thus the word 'Wool (Oon)' has obviously been
  used in the popular sense and not in the sense used in scientific and
C technical terminology which the traders and the consumers are not
  normally supposed to know. [297D-H; 298A]

        Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Onion of India, [1985] 3 SCC
  284 and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper
D Co., [1989] 1SCC150, relied on.

          Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 23, relied on.

         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1695 of
    1987 Etc. Etc.
E
          (Under Article; 23 of the Consitution of India).

          Govind Mukhotey, J.D. Jain and B.B. Sinha for the Petitioners.

      Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mahabir Singh, K.B. Rohtagi and Shashank
F Shekhar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         OJHA, J. The petitioners in these writ petitions are licenced
   dealers having factories and manufacturing units at Panipat in the
(; State of Haryana and consume sheep hair for manufacturing woollen
   fabrics and blankets. In order to carry on their trade they purchase
   sheep-hair to get yarn manufactured out of it for being used in its turn
   for manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets.

          The only question urged in these writ petitions is as to whether
H sheep-hair was an agricultural produce within the meaning of the said
            MADAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (OJHA, J.)                  295

term as defined under Section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so as to attract      A
the provisions of the said Act to it. The term "agricultural produce"
according to its definition contained under Section 2( a) of the Act
means all produce, whether processed or not, of agriculture, horti-
culture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the Schedule to the
Act. On its plain meaning, therefore, only such produce as is specified      B
in the Schedule to the Act shall fall within the term "agricultural pro-
duce". Section 38 of the· Act confers power on the State Government,
by notification, to add to the Schedule any other item of agricultural
produce or amend or omit any item of such produce specified therein.
The relevant items in the Schedule on which reliance has been placed
by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that
sheep-hair was not an agricultural produce are items 41. Wool (Oon),         c
75. Goat-hair and 76. Camel-hair.

      It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that even
though Goat-hair and Camel-hair have been included in the Schedule,
Sheep-hair had not been so included and consequently sheep-hair was          D
not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act and the
insistence of the authorities that the petitioners should obtain a licence
and pay market fee with regard to their transaction in respect of sheep-
hair was unjustified. With r~ard to item No. 41 namely Wool (Oori),
it was urged firstly that wool is the manufactured item of sheep-hair
and not sheep-hair itself and secondly the word 'wool' according to its
                                                                             E
dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including
sheep. Reference in this behalf has been made to the Dictionary of
Scientific and Technical Terms-M.C. Graw-Hill. According to it
wool is a·'textifo fibre made from raw wool characterised by absor-
bency, resiliency and insulation. It further states that wool is the soft
undercoat of various animals such as sheep, angora, ·goat, camel,
                                                                             F
alpaca, llamma and vicuna.

      Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined
to agree with the submission made by \earned counsel for the peti-
tioners. Before dealing with the matter further it would be useful to
notice at this place that item No. 41 of the Schedule after the word G
'wool' uses the word 'Oon' also within brackets which indicates as to
what was really intended by the use of the word 'Wool'. Indeed, in the
Hindi version of the Act, item No. 41 of the Schedule uses the word
'Oon' only and does not at all use the word 'wool'. Now to the submis-
sions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the first submission
made by him that the word 'wool' contemplated manufactured item of H
    296        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

  sheep-hair and not sheep-hair itself, it belied even by the dictionary
A meaning of the said word relied on by him. Firstly, the raw-material
  out of which a textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool.
  Secondly, not only the textile fibre but also the soft undercoat of
  various animals including sheep has itself been described as wool. It is,
  therefore, apparent that not only the textile fibre made out of raw
B wool but even the soft undercoat of the various animals including
  sheep, according to the dictionary aforesaid, would be wool. Ency-
  clopaedia Britannica, under the heading wool in vol. 23, states: "Ani-
  mal fibres are usually spoken of as hair, with the exception of the coat
  of the sheep which is usually termed wool". A perusal of what has
  been stated under the heading wool therein would indicate that wool
  has almost invariably been used in the context of sheep-hair.
c
          In Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, [1985] 3
    SCC page 284 after referring to several earlier decisions of this Court it
    was held that in determining the meaning or connotation of words and
    expressions describing an article in a tariff schedule those words and
o   expressions should be construed in the sense in which they are under-
    stood in the trade by the dealer and the customer when goods are
    marketable. The same rule of interpretation was reiterated in Col-
    lector of Central Excise, Kanpurv. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., [1989) 1
    sec page 150. It was held:
E               "It is well settled, as mentioned before, that where no
                definition is provided in the statute itself, as in this case for
                ascertaining the correct meaning of a fiscal entry reference
                to a dictionary is not always safe. The correct guide, it
                appears in such a case, is the context and tlie trade meaning
                xxxxx
F
                The trade meaning is one which is prevalent in that particu-
                lar trade where the goods is known or traded. If special type
                of goods is subject matter of a fiscal entry then that entry
                must be understood in the context of that particular trade,
                bearing in mind that particular word xxxxx
G
                It is a well settled principle of construction, as. mentioned
                before, that where the word has a scientific or technical
                meaning and also an ordinary meaning according to com-
                mon parlance, it is in the latter sense that in a taxing statute
                the word must be held to have been used, unless contrary
H               intention is clearly expressed by the legislature. This princi-
             MADAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (OJHA, J.(                 297

             pie is well settled by a long line of decisions of Canadian,
             American, Australian and Indian cases. Pollock, J. pointed       A
             out in Grenfell v. I.R.C., [1876) 1 Ex. D 242, 248 that if a
             statute contains language which is capable of being
             construed in a popular sense, such a statute is not to be
             construed according to the strict or technical meaning of
             the language contained in it, but is to be construd in its       B
             popular sense, meaning of course, by the words "popular
             sense" that which people conversant with the subject
             matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to
             it. The ordinary words in every day use are, therefore, to be
             construed according to their popular sense. The same view
             was reiterated by Story, J. in 200 Chests of Tea (1824) 9
             Wheaton US 435, 438 where he observed that the legisla-          c
             ture does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists, or
             geologists, or botanists."

        In our opinion, the aforesaid rule of interpretation would apply
  even to the interpretation of the items of the Schedule to the Act          D
  keeping in view the nature and purpose of the enactment. Interpreting
  item No. 41 Wool(Oon) of the Schedule in this light there seems to be
  no mannner of doubt that the word 'wool' has been used therein only
  in the sense in which the word 'Oon' is understood in the trade by the
  dealer and the consumer in the popular sense namely that which
  people conversant with the word 'Oon' would attribute to it. If anyone      E
  goes to the market to purchase wool (oon) he would be offered only
  sheep-hair and not goat-hair or camel-hair or for the matter of that the
  hair of any other animal. Indeed, there is intrinsic evidence in the
. Schedule itself of the fact that in the English version the word 'Wool
  (Oon)' and in the Hindi version 'Oon' only at item No. 41 has been
  used in the same popular sense namely that of sheep-hair. This inten-       F
  tion is apparent from the circumstances that care has been taken to
  "Pecifically include goat-hair and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the
  Schedule. Had Wool (Oon) been used at item No. 41 in the com-
  prehensive sense as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petition-
  ers it wonld have automatically included Goat-hair and Camel-hair
  also and the specific inclusion of Goat-hair and Camel-hair at items 75     G
  and 7_6 would have been wholly unnecessary. Consequently, their
  specific inclusion at items 75 and 76 is a clear indication of the aware-
  ness of the fact that the trade meaning of the word 'Wool (Oon)' which
  iS'prevalent in the popular sense would be sheep-hair alone and as such
  unless goat-hair and camel-hair are included as specific items in the
  Schedule they will not be treated as agricultural produce. The word         H
         298         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    A 'Wool (Oon)' has obviously been used at item No. 41 of the Schedule
      in the aforesaid popular sense and not in the sense used in scientific
      and technical terminology which the traders and the consumers are not
      normally supposed to know.

               In view of the foregoing discussion, we are clearly of the opm10n
    B    thatsheep-hair falls under the item No. 41 of the Schedule namely
         "Wool (Oon)" as contained in the English version and "Oon" only as
         contained in the Hindi version of the Act. Sheep-hair is consequently
         an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act so that the
         various provisions therein with regard to agricultural produce are ap-
         plicable to sheep-hair also.
    ('
              In the result, we find no merit in these writ petitions. They are
         accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall
         be no order as to costs.

         G.N.                                               Petitions dismissed.
    D




•