http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: THE SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPECTORAND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAXMI NARAYAN CHOPRA    AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/08/1961

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1962 AIR  159            1962 SCR  (3) 146  CITATOR INFO :  APL        1963 SC 445  (4)  R          1964 SC 828  (18)  E&R        1978 SC 548  (8)  R          1988 SC 191  (45)  RF         1992 SC 573  (33)

ACT: Telegraphy-Wireless-Station-Expression   "Telegraph   line", Meaning of-If  includes electric  lines used for the purpose of  wireless  telegraph-Indian Electricity Act, 1910  (9  of 1910),  ss.2,34(2)  (b) Indian Telegraph Act,  1885  (13  of 1885),  3(4)-Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948)  Statute- Construction-Maxim  Contemporanea  Expositio eat  optima  et fortissima  in  lege-If  applicable  to  Acts  comparatively modern-Mode of Interpretation.

HEADNOTE: Severe  electrical interference was observed in a  Post  and Telegraphs   Wireless  Station  which  was  traced  to   the respondent  No. 1’s factory where a number  of  motors,-were operated  for the purpose of working electric  drills.   The Senior Electric Inspector issued a notice to the first  res- pondent  to show cause as to why an order under s.34(2)  (b) of  the Indian Electricity Act requiring  discontinuance  of the  operation  of the electric motors in the  said  factory should not be made. The  first  respondent challenged the said order by  a  writ petition contending inter alia that there was no  "Telegraph Line"  in the Posts and Telegraphs Wireless  Station  within the meaning of s.34(2)(b) of the Act. The  High Court held, firstly, that the word ’line’  in  the expression  telegraph  line’  connotes the  existence  of  a defined  channel of communication which has got  a  physical existence  and  that wireless telegraphy is  dependent  upon transmission through space of electric waves and that is not a  defined  physical  channel.   Secondly,  the   expression "telegraph line", as used in s. 34 2)(b) of the Indian Elec- tricity  Act, has, in the absence of any new  definition  in that Act, to be given the same sense as the Legislature  had intended in 1885 by the definition of that expression in the earlier   Act.   This  reason  is  based  upon   the   maxim

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

contemporaries exposition west optima et fortissima in  lege (contemporaneous  exposition  is the best and  strongest  in law). The  appellants contended that the definition of  "telegraph line" in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, was wide enough  to take in electric lines used for the purpose of 147 wireless telegraph and the High Court went wrong in invoking the   old  maxim  contemporanea  expositio  est  optima   et fortisima  in lege in construing the provisions of a  modern statute. Held, that the combined reading of the relevant,  provisions of  the  Indian  Electricity  Act,  1910,  and  the   Indian Telegraph  Act,  1885, a "Telegraph line"  is  comprehensive enough and means a wire or wires used for the purpose of  an appliance  or apparatus for receiving telegraphic  or  other communications by means of electricity, and it need not be a continuous  physical channel from the point of  transmission to the point of reception. A  wireless transmitter transmits sound as  electro-magnetic waves and the said waves are detected by the aerial and  fed into the receiving apparatus by wires.  So the wires of  the aerials well as of the apparatus are used for the purpose of the  apparatus   receiving   communications.    Thus,    the receivingapparatus  employs  "telegraph lines"  within  the meaning ofs.3 (4) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Held,  further,  that the maxim contemporanea  expositio  as laid  down  by  Coke  was  applied  to  construing   ancient statutes,   but   not  to  interpreting  Acts   which   were comparatively modem: The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or  that  of  a modern one, namely what  is  the  expressed, intention  of  the  Legislature.  In  a  modern  progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature- to the meaning attributable to the word  used at  the  time  the  law was  made,  and  unless  a  contrary intention appeared, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them. The maxim "contemporanea expositio" could not be invoked  in construing   the  word  "telegraph  line"  in   the   Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Assheton  Smith v. Owen, (1906)1 Ch. 179, Attorney-  General v.. Edison Telephone Co. of London, (1880)6 Q. B. D. 244  In re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication in Canada, (1932)  A. C. 304, The King v. Brislan,.Ex parte  Williams, (1935)   54  C.L.R.  262  and  James  v.  Commonwealth   ,of Austratia, (1936) A.C. 578, referred to. State  of  Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley &  Go.  (Madras)  Ltd. (1959) S.C.R. 379, relied on., 148

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No. 328,of 1958. Appeals  from  the judgment and order  dated  September  12, 1956,  of  the Calcutta High Court in Appeal  from  Original Order No. 15 of 1955.  B. Sen P. K. Chatterjee and P.K. Bose, for the appellants. Dipak Datta Choudhri and P. D. Menon., for respondent No. 2. 1961.   August 16.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by SUBBA   RAO,   J.-This  appeal  raises   the   question   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

construction  of  the  expression ,,telegraph  line"  in  S. 34(2)(b)  of  the Indian Electricity Act, 1910  (Act  9  ’of 1910), (hereinafter called the’ Act). The  first  respondent,  Laxmi Narayan  Chopra,  carries  on business, as motor  coach builder;, under the name and style of "Chopra Motors" having, his factory at 139, Regent  Park, Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta., In the said  factory a number of "Universal Electric Motors" are operated for the purpose  of working electric drills.  Within a  distance  of 100 feet of the said factory, there is a Post and  Telegraph Wireless  Station,  which, besides functioning  as  a  coast station  communicating  with ships at  sea,  handles  public messages in large volume from Darjeeling, Shillong, Gauhati, Agartala  and  New  Delhi.  In or about  Aril,  1953  severe electrical interference was observed in the said station and experts  attributed  the same. to local induction  from  the first respondent’s factory. On October 13, 1953, the  Senior Electric  Inspector issued a notice to the first  respondent to  show cause writing as to why an order under s.  34(2)(b) of  the  Act,  read with notification  No.  4193-COM,  dated August   1  14,  1929  requiring  discontinuation  of the operation of the Universal Electric Motors in the 149 said  factory  premises  should’ not be  made.   After  some correspondence:  on: December 1, 1953, the  Senior  Electric Inspector  made  an  order  under a.  34(2)(b)  of  the  Act requiring  the  first  respondent  to  remedy  the  injuries affecting   the   lines  used   for   wireless   telegraphic communications  at-  the  Wireless  Receiving  Centre.    On January  12, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition  in the   High  Court  at  Calcutta  under  Art.  226   of   the Constitution  pray  for  a writ of  mandamus  or  any  other appropriate  mug writ directing the appellants  to  withdraw and cancel the said order and to forbear from giving  effect to the same.  The petition came up for hearing, in the first instance, before Sinha J., of that Court.  It was contended, interalia,  that there was no "telegraph line" in  the  Post and  Telegraph  Wireless  Station  within  the  meaning   of s.34(2)(b) of the Act, and, therefore, the notice issued  by the  Senior  Electric Inspector  was  without  jurisdiction. Sinha   J.,  rejected  the  contention  and  dismissed   the petition.   But  on appeal, a division bench  of  that  High Court, consisting of Mookerjee, A. C, J., and H.-K. Bose J., accepted the contention of the first respondent and issued a writ as prayed for.  The present appeal is directed  against the said order. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  contends  that   the definition  of  ",’telegraph line" in the  Indian  Telegraph Act, (Act 13 of 1885), which is included by reference in the Act,- is wide, enough to take in electric lines used for the purpose of wire. less telegraph and that the Appellate Bench of  the  High  Court went wrong in invoking  the  old  maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege  in construing the provisions of a modern state.      The  first respondent is ex parte; but in this case hisviewpoint    is forcibly  expressed in the judgment of the High Court  under appeal. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary at  the outset. to read I the relevant provisions of the Act and the Telegraph Act. 150               The Indian Electricity Act, 1910               Section  34. (2) If at any time it  is  estab-               lished to the satisfaction of the  appropriate               Government-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             (b)that any electric supply lines or  other               works for the generation, transmission, supply               or  use of energy are attended with danger  to               the  public  safety  or  to  ’human  life   or               injuriously  affect  any telegraph  line,  the               appropriate   Government  may,  by  order   in               writing, specify the matter complained of  and               require  the  owner or user of  such  electric               supply-lines  or other works to remedy  it  in               such  manner  as  shall be  specified  in  the               order, and may also in like manner forbid  the               use  of,  and  the supply of  energy  to,  any               electric supply-line or works ’until the order               is complied with or for such time as is speci-               fied in the order.               Section 2. In this Act, expression,.;  defined               in  the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, or in  the               Electricity  (Supply)  Act,  1948,  have   the               meanings  assigned to them in either of  those               Acts............                       The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885               Section 3. (1) "telegraph" means an  electric,               galvanic  or magnetic telegraph, and  includes               appliances    and   apparatus   for    making,               transmitting    or    receiving    telegraphic               telephonic  or other communications  means  of               electricity, galvanism or magnetism.               (4)"telegraph  line" means a wire or  wires               used  for the purpose of a telegraph with  any               casing,  coating, tube or pipe  enclosing  the               same  and  any appliances and  apparatus  con-               nected  therewith  the purpose  of  fixing  or               insulating the same. A combined reading of the relevant provisions of 151 the two Acts may-be expressed thus: "’Telegraph line"  means a  wire  or wires used for the purpose of  an  appliance  or apparatus for receiving telegraphic or other  communications by means of electricity. If it is established to the satisfaction of the  appropriate Government  that any works for the  generation  transmission supply, or use of electrical energy injuriously affects such a  telegraph line the said Government is authorized to  take appropriate  action  under.s.  34 of the  Act.   It  is  not disputed  that  in the said factory a  number  of  Universal Electric  Motors  are operated for the  purpose  of  working electric  drills  and  it  is  also  established  that   the interference with the reception of messages at the Telegraph Wireless  Station is, attributable to local  induction  from the  said  factory.  But the, dispute  between  the  parties centers  round  the question whether the  said  interference with   the  reception  of  messages  at  the  said   Station injuriously affects any telegraph line within the meaning of s. 34 of the Act.  The Telegraph Wireless Receiving  Station clearly  comes within the definition of "telegraph"  in  the Telegraph  Act.   The  Telegraph Act  was  passed  in  1885. "Telegraph"  then meant "an electric, galvanic  or  magnetic telegraph  and  appliance, and  apparatus  for  telegraphic, telephonic or other communications by means of  electricity, galvanism  or magnetism".  At that time wireless  telegraphy or  radio had not been developed.  In the year 1914,s.  3(1) of  the  said Act was amended and the following  words  were inserted   after  the  words  "apparatus  for"  :   "’making transmitting or receiving".  With the result that, after the amendment,   receiving   of  communications  by   means   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

electricity  was  included in the  definition.   A  wireles. receiving station certainly receives communications by means of electricity, and therefore, it. is "telegraph" within the meaning  of said definition.  Though the., said station  may be within the definition of "telegraph", the question  still remains 152 whether  there  is  a  "telegraph  line",  for,  under   the definition, to be a ’,,telegraph line" there shall.be a wire or  wires  used for the purpose of  an  apparatus  receiving communications  by  means of electricity Under  the  heading "wireless telegraphy" in. the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 28,   a  brief  but  adequate  description  of  a   wireless telegraphy is given thus               "A  wireless  transmitter  is  a  device   for               producing rapid oscillatory motion of electri-               city  which is the origin of  electric  waves.               Such   electric  waves  are  detected  at a               wireless  receiving station b ’the effects  of               the  rapidly  varying  electric  and  magnetic               forces  Which  constitute the  electric  wave-               motion." Are  any  wires  used  for  the  purpose  of  the  apparatus receiving  the  said communications ?  In  the  Encyclopedia Britannica some of the receiving stations ate described  and ’it  shows  that wires are invariably used as  aerials  for receiving  the said communications.  In the present  case  , the Senior Electric Inspector filed an affidavit wherein  he stated  "it  was  established to my  satisfaction  that  the operation  and  use  of the  ’Universal  drills  during  the working hours of the factory caused serious interference  by induction to the existing lines as well as to the  receiving apparatus containing wires which are/were expressly used for telegraphic communication at the said centre." It is  there- fore  manifest  that wires are used for the purpose  of  the apparatus  receiving communications that is, wires are  used not  only for the aerial but &ISO inside the  apparatus.   A ’wireless  transmitter  transmits sound  as  electromagnetic waves and the said waves are detected by the. aerial and fed into  the receiving apparatus by wires.  To put  it  shortly the wires of the aerial as well as of the apparatus are used for the purpose of the apparatus receiving communications.If so, it follows Chit the receiving 153 appartus employs "telegraph lines" within the meaning of  s. 3(4) of the Telegraph Act. The   High  Court  gave  two  reasons  for   rejecting   the appellants’  contention.  The first reason is that the  word line’  in  the  expression  ’telegraph  line’  connotes  the existence  of a defined channel of communication  which  has got  a  physical existence and that wireless  telegraphy  is dependent upon transmission through space of electric  waves and  that  is  not a defined physical  channel.   We  cannot accept  this reasoning, for a telegraph line is not  defined to mean a defined continuous physical channel from the point of transmission to the point of reception.  The  definition, as  we have pointed out, is comprehensive enough to take  in any wire used for the purpose of an apparatus for  receiving communications by means of electricity. The  second reason given by the learned Judges is  that  the expression "’telegraph line", as used in s. 34(2)(b) of the Indian  Electricity  Act,  has, in the absence  of  any  new definition  in that Act., to be given the same sense as  the Legislature  had intended in 1885 by the definition of  that expression  in the earlier Act.  This reason is  based  upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the  maxim contemporanea expositio est optima et  fortissima in   lege  (contemporaneous  exposition  is  the  best   and strongest  in  law).  To state it differently, in  the  year 1885  the  Legislature could not have dreamt of  the  future discovery  of wireless telegraphy and, therefore, could  not have  intended to use the expression "telegraph line"  in  a comprehensive  sense  so as to take in electric wires  of  a receiving station of wireless telegraphy. It  is necessary to consider the scope of the said maxim  in its application to the interpretation of modem statutes.  In Craies on Statute Law, 5th edn., the said rule is  explained in the words of Coke thus at p. 77. 154 "This  and  the  like were the forms  of  ancient  Acts  and graunts,  and,,  the.  ancient Acts and  graunts  must.  be’ ’construed and taken as the law was holden at that time when they were, made.", The discussion ended with the following  words at p. 79 "In Assheton Smith  v. Owen(1), Cozens Hardy, L. J. said  do               not  think that the doctrine of  contenporanea               exposition  can be applied in construing  Acts               which are, comparatively modern and the  Court               declined   to   apply  the  rule  1   to   the               interpretation  of  local  Acts  of  1793  and               1800." In  Halsbury’s  Laws of England, 2nd edn., Vol., 32,  it  is stated in the context of telegraph legislation thus at p. 4 The  fact that new methods of telegraphy have been  invented since  the  date  of  passing of  the  Acts  containing  the definition  does not prevent the application of the Acts  to such methods, provided that they answer the requirements and fall within the terms of the definition." In  Sutherland’s Statutory Construction, 3rd. edn., Vol.  2, dealing with the said maxim,-the learned author states at p. 508 as follows "As a general rule it may be stated -that legislative intent should  be  determined as of the time the  legislation  goes into effect.  But surrounding circumstances and situations occurring after the enactment of the statute may be of great or even conclusive assistance in determining a meaning which was intended to be  conveyed. Legislative standards are generally couched ill terms  which have,  considerable  breadth.  Therefore a.  status  may  be interpreted to include., circumstances or (1)  (1906) 1 Ch. 179, 213. 155               situations which were unknown or did not exist               at the time of the enactment of the statute." Decided   cases  accepted  the  said  liberal  approach   in construing modern statutes.  In The Attorney-General v.  The Edison Telephone Company of London (1),a telephone was  held to  be  a "telegraph" within the meaning of  the  Telegraphs Acts, 1863 and 1869, although the telephone was not invented or contemplated in 1869.  Stephen, T., observed at p. 254 :               "Of   course   no  one   supposes   that   the               legislature intended to refer specifically  to               telephones   many  years  before   they   were               invented, but it is highly probable that  they               would,  and  it seems to us  clear  that  they               actually  did, use language  embracing  future               discoveries  as to the use of electricity  for               the purpose of conveying intelligence." The  Privy-Council  in re Regulation and  Control  of-Radio Communication  in  Canada ( 2) held that  broadcasting  fell within  the m eaning of the expression              in  s.92

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

of  British North America Act,1867, though at the time  when that  Act  was made broadcasting was not in vogue.   In  The King  V.  Brislan ; ex parte Williams(3)  the  question  was whether a law of the Commonwealth Parliament with respect to radio   broadcasting  was  one  with  respect  to   "Postal, telegraphic  telephonic  and other like services"  under  s. 1(5) of the Australian Commonwealth Act, and the Court  held that   the  words  were  wide  enough  to  take   in   radio broadcasting. In James v. Commonwealth of Australia(4),Lord Wright has state the principle in felicitous language thus (1) (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 244..  (2) (1932) A. C. 304. (3) (1935) 54 C  L.R. 262.   (4) (1936) A.C. 578, 641. 156               "...... the meaning of the words changes,  but               the  changing  circumstances  illustrate   and               illuminate the full import of that meaning." This Court in construing the words "sale of goods" in  Entry 48,  List  II of the Seventh Schedule to the  Government  of India  Act,  1935, accepted the aforesaid principle  in  The State  of Madras V. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., (Madras)  Ltd. (1),and restated it at p. 416 thus               "The  principle  of these decisions.  is  that               when,  after the enactment of  a  legislation,               new facts and situations arise which could not               have been in its contemplation, the  statutory               provisions  could properly be applied to  them               if  the  words thereof are in  a  broad  sense               capable- of containing them." The  legal  position  may  be  summarized  thus:  The  maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied  to construing  ancient  statutes but not to  interpreting  Acts which are comparatively modern.  There is a good reason  for this change in the mode of interpretation.  The  fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the Court is  asked to  construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of  a modern  one, namely, what is the expressed intention of  the Legislature.   It  is perhaps difficult to  attribute  to  a legislative  body  functioning in static  society  that  its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to   take   within  its  sweep   the   future   developments comprehended by the phraseology used.  It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at  the time the law was made.  But in a  modem  progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a  Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word  used at  the  time the law was made, for  a  modern  Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware (1)  [1959] S.C. R. 379. 157 of  an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract  with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about  in  social, economic, political and  scientific  and other fields of human. activity.  Indeed, unless a  contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to  the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are  capable of comprehending them.  We  cannot,  therefore, agree  with the learned Judges of the High Court  that  the maxim contemporanea expositio could be invoked in construing the word "telegraph line" in the Act. For   the  said  reasons,  we  hold  that   the   expression "’telegraph  line" is sufficiently comprehensive to take  in the wires used for the purpose of the apparatus of the  Post and Telegraph Wireless Station. In the result, we set aside the order of the High Court  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

dismiss  the  petition filed by the first  respondent.   The appeal  is allowed, but, in the circumstances of  the  case, without costs. Appeal allowed.