1978 JTR(J&K) 78
1979 AIR(J&K) 33 ; 2010 7 JKJ 575 ; 1979 JKLR 84 ; 1979 KHC 1554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mian Jalal-ud-Din,A.S. Anand,Gh. Mohammad Mir, JJ.
Assistant Director Central Intelligence - Appellant
Versus
Th. Harnam Chand & Ors. - Respondent
CIA No. 18/1975
Decided On : 03 November, 1978
The word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 includes the Union Government.
Act Referred :HOUSES AND SHOPS RENT CONTROL ACT : S.1(3)(i)
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HOUSES AND SHOP RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 1(3)(I) - INTERPRETATION - EXEMPTION FROM OPERATION OF ACT - UNION GOVERNMENT INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF "GOVERNMENT" - WORD "GOVERNMENT" NOT LIMITED TO STATE GOVERNMENT ONLY.
Fact of the Case:
The question arose as to whether the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 (the Act) included the Union Government. Two conflicting Division Bench decisions of the High Court existed on this issue.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act also includes the Union Government. The court reasoned that there was no warrant for the proposition that the expression "Government" was confined only to the Government of the State, as the affairs of the State were run by both the State Government and the Union Government in certain matters.
Issues: Whether the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 included the Union Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the word "Government" in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act to include the Union Government based on the following reasons: * The legislature did not attach any prefix to the word "Government" in the Act, indicating that it did not intend to limit it to the State Government only. * Sub-section 3(i) relates to the grant of exemptions, and it would not be desirable or conclusive to exclude the departments of the Union of India from claiming exemption when they are also engaged in the administration of important affairs of the State. * The affairs of the State include not only the affairs of the particular state but also the affairs of the Union of India.
Final Decision: The court held that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act also includes the Union Government, and the law laid down in AIR 1961 J&K 39, which held otherwise, cannot be considered good law.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HOUSES AND SHOP RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 1(3)(I) - INTERPRETATION - EXEMPTION FROM OPERATION OF ACT - UNION GOVERNMENT INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF "GOVERNMENT" - WORD "GOVERNMENT" NOT LIMITED TO STATE GOVERNMENT ONLY.
Fact of the Case:
The question arose as to whether the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 (the Act) included the Union Government. Two conflicting Division Bench decisions of the High Court existed on this issue.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act also includes the Union Government. The court reasoned that there was no warrant for the proposition that the expression "Government" was confined only to the Government of the State, as the affairs of the State were run by both the State Government and the Union Government in certain matters.
Issues: Whether the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 included the Union Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the word "Government" in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act to include the Union Government based on the following reasons: * The legislature did not attach any prefix to the word "Government" in the Act, indicating that it did not intend to limit it to the State Government only. * Sub-section 3(i) relates to the grant of exemptions, and it would not be desirable or conclusive to exclude the departments of the Union of India from claiming exemption when they are also engaged in the administration of important affairs of the State. * The affairs of the State include not only the affairs of the particular state but also the affairs of the Union of India.
Final Decision: The court held that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act also includes the Union Government, and the law laid down in AIR 1961 J&K 39, which held otherwise, cannot be considered good law.
Advocate For Appellant: S.P. Vohra
Advocate For Respondent: K.N. Raina
Advocate For Respondent: S.T. Hussain
Per Honble the C. J.
1. This appeal came to be heard by one of us. An important question relating to interpretation of Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as "The Act" was raised in the appeal. It was canvassed on behalf of the appeallant that admittedly the plaintiff claimed ejectment of the suit premises under Proviso (h) (i) to Section 11 (1) of the Act. The union of India could claim exemption from the operation of the Act under Sub-Section 3 (i) of Section 1 of the Act. It was submitted that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act included the Union Government. To support this proposition of law, reliance was placed upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in ease Union of India Versus Narain Singh and ors, reported as 1976 KLJ 33. In the aforesaid decision, the view has been expressed that the expression "Government" occurring in Cl. (i) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 1 of the Act, also means the Union of India.
2. On the other hand, another Division Bench of this court while deciding the case of L. Bhagwan Dass Mengi, versus Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1961 Jammu and Kashmir, 39, took a contrary view and laid down that the word "Government" could be interpreted only to mean State Government and not union Government. In order to resolve this conflict of decision, it was felt necessary to refer the question of law to the Full Bench. This is how the case has come before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is, however, noticed that the Division Bench in A.I.R. 1961 J&K, 39, did not elaborately discuss the legal question and in short judgment disposed of this question. The view proceeded on concession made by the other side in that case. On the other hand, the Division Bench in 1976 KLJ (Supra) considered the question in a more detailed manner and concluded by observing that the word "Government" included the Union
Government.
3. To us, it appears that the view laid down in 1976 KLJ 31 (Supra) is the correct law on the subject. There is no warrant for the proposition that the expression "Government" occurring in clause (i) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 1 of the Act is confined only to the Government of the State. As a matter of fact the affairs of the State are run by both State Government and also the Union Government in certain matters. To limit the definition of the Government, as indicated in 1961 J&K (Supra) is to exclude the Union Govt., which, undoubtedly is responsible for the administration of important affairs of the State such as matters relating to communication, defence, accounts and audit national media and other matters. There do exist institutions of the Union Government in the State which also run the affairs of the State These institutions belonging to Union Government are entitled Claim exemption from the operation of the Act just in the same way as the institutions of the State Government are entitled to claim
4. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act, also includes the Union Government. In that view of the matter the law laid down in A.I.R. 1961 J&K, 39 (Supra) cannot be held to be a good law on the subject.
5. The question is answered accordingly.
The case will now go before the appropriate Bench for disposing of the appeal on the other matters.
Dated 3rd Nov 1978. sd/-Chief Justice
Sd/- Judge
Per Dr. Anand J.
6.I have had the advantage of going through the judgment prepared by my lord the Chief Justice. I agree with the conclusion and the reasonings giving therein. I would, however like to add a few words of my own.
7. The expression "Government" occurring in sub-section 3 (1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act has not been defined in the Act itself. The legislature, however, in its supreme wisdom did not attach any prefix to the word Government as occurring in sub-section 3 (1) of section 1 of the Act. In case the intention of the legislature was to restrict the import of the expression Government to State Government only there was no reason why the legislature could not have made that intention clear by using State Government instead of Government. By using the expression Government without any" prefix, it is evident that the legislature did not intend to limit it to the State Government only sub-section 3 (i) relates to the grant of exemptions and in the matter of grant of exemption, it would neither be desirable for conclusive to the recognised principles of interpretation of statutes to exclude the departments of Union of India from claiming exemption when such departments are also engaged in the administration of important affairs of the State. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 S. C. 493 opined that the affairs of the State are not confined only to the affairs of the particular state but include the affairs of the Union of India also.
8. In this view of the matter, I agree with my lord the Chief Justice that the expression Government in Sub-section 3 (i) of Section 1 of the Act includes the Union Government also. The law laid down in AIR 1961 J&K 39, cannot as such be held to be good law.