TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002, which was disposed of following the view expressed in the other writ petition. The dispute relates to eligibility of appellants to be selected for dealership in petroleum products. Factual controversy lies in a narrow compass and is as follows: In both writ petitions challenge was to the selection of the appellants in Civil Appeal nos.8737/2003 and 8739/2003 for retail dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short IOC ) at different places. The appellants and writ-petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court were applicants for dealership and distributionship of various petroleum products. Challenge to the selection was on the ground that the selected persons were not eligible for selection on several grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments rendered by the High Court. Writ petitioner in Civil Misc. petition No.24966/2003 has questioned correctness of High Court s order in Civil Appeal no.8742/ 2003 on the ground that it had raised several other points to contend that the selected person was ineligible but the High Court did not refer to them. Originally, selected persons and IOC are appellants in other Civil Appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable. In clear and unambiguous terms the advertisement indicated persons who are covered. It was not permissible for the High Court to add persons to the list of the relatives. The writpetitioners before the High Court, the respondents herein supported the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M/s Price Waterhouse and Anr. (AIR 1998 SC 74). The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford v. Spooner (1846 (6) Moore PC 1), Courts, cannot aid the Legislatures defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there. (See The State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr. (JT 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation. While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. (See Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain (2000 (5) SCC 511). The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Two principles of construction \026 one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole \026 appear to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is no reason, when the words of a law do enough extend to an inconvenience seldom happening, that they should not extend to it as well as if it happened more frequently, because it happens but seldom (See Fenton v. Hampton (1858) XI Moore, P.C. 347. A casus omissus ought not to be created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity. Where, however, a casus omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence of the legislature, or on the principle quod semel aut bis existit proetereunt legislators, the rule is that the particular case, thus left unprovided for, must be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute - Casus omissus et oblivioni datus dispositioni communis juris relinquitur; a casu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n writ petition no.24966/2000 has taken the plea that other grounds were highlighted in the writ petition to show as to how the selected person was ineligible. The High Court has not dealt with any other issue and has disposed of only on the ground that the father-in-law was holding dealership, thereby rendering daughter-in-law ineligible. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of other issues raised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any other issue then those indicated above. So, far as writ petition 18104/2002 is concerned, it is not the case that any other point was raised. Therefore, only writ petition no.24966 of 2003 remitted to the High Court to consider if the other pleas rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
