http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7285 of 2001

PETITIONER: U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd

RESPONDENT: Kisan Upbhokta Parishad & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/12/2007

BENCH: A. K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7285 OF 2001

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1.      This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the  Allahabad High Court dated 22.2.2000 in Writ Petition No.23662 of 1999.

2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.      The respondent in this appeal, which is a Union of cane growers and  looks after the interest of sugarcane farmers in Meerut District, was the  petitioner in the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.  It was  alleged in the writ petition that cane growers of the area require implements  and other equipments for agriculture.  For this purpose it purchases Animal  Driven Vehicles (hereinafter called \023ADV carts\024) in order to transport the  sugarcane from the agriculture fields to the sugar factories or other places  where it is required to be sent.  The State Government from time to time has  provided a subsidy on the purchase of ADV carts and other agricultural  implements.

4.      It appears that the State Government issued an order dated 20.11.1996  stating that all kinds of agricultural implements driven by hand operation or  animal power should be purchased from the U.P. State Agro Industrial  Limited.  The short question in the writ petition before the High Court was  whether the ADV carts are agricultural implements.  If, they are then in  order to get subsidy, purchases had to be made only from the Corporation  and not from other parties.  

5.      The Cane Commissioner, U.P. issued a letter dated 5.3.1999, copy of  which is Annexure P-2 to this appeal, stating that in pursuance of the  aforesaid Government order dated 20.11.1996 of the U.P. Government,  ADV carts can only be purchased from the U.P. State Agro Industrial  Limited.  This order dated 5.3.1999 of the Cane Commissioner was  challenged in the writ petition on the ground that it was in conflict with the  Government order dated 20.11.1996.                  

6.      The short question in this appeal is whether ADV carts are also  agricultural implements.

7.      The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edn. Revised) defines  \021implement\022 as \023a tool, utensil or other piece of equipment used for a  particular purpose\024.  The same dictionary defines ‘tool\022 as \023a device or  implement, typically hand-held, used to carry out a particular function\024.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

8.      In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn.) the word  \021implement\022 has been defined as \023a thing used in work, especially in manual  work; a utensil; tool\024.  In the same dictionary  the word \021tool\022 has been  defined as a \023simple mechanism or implement, as a hammer, saw, spade, or  chisel, used chiefly in the direct manual working, moving, shaping, or  transforming of material\024.  

9.      In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (3rd edn 2005) the  word \021tool\022 has been defined as \023things designed to help the hand in work,  especially in industrial operations\024.

10.     One word can have several meanings, and several words can have the  same meaning (synonyms).  Thus, for example, the word ‘ball\022 can mean the  spherical object used in a game, or it can also mean a dance; it can also mean  having a nice time, etc.  Similarly, several words can have the same meaning  e.g. the Sanskrit words ‘pankaj\022, ‘jalaj\022, ‘kamal\022, ‘padma\022, ‘saroj\022, ‘sarsij \022,  etc. which all mean ‘Lotus\022.   

11.     No doubt the word \021implement\022 can have several dictionary meanings.   However, in interpretation it is well settled that ordinarily the meaning of the  word or expression in common parlance or in common use should be  accepted, unless the statute or order in which it is used has defined it with a  specific meaning.  There is no definition of the word \021implements\022 in the  G.O. of the State Government dated 20.11.1996.   

12.     In the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation, which is our indigenous  system of interpretation, one of the principles is : :f<+;ksZxeigjfr

13.     The above principle means \023the popular meaning overpowers the  etymological meaning\024.

14.     For example, the word ‘pankaja\022 literally means whatever grows in  mud.  The word ‘panka\022 means ‘mud\022, and the suffix ‘ja\022 means ‘which is  born in\022.  Hence the etymological meaning of the word ‘pankaja\022 is \021that  which is born in mud\022.  Thus literally there can be several things which  could mean ‘pankaja\022 e.g. worms or insects born in mud, all kinds of  vegetation which are born and found in mud, etc.  However, by popular  usage the word ‘pankaja\022 has acquired a particular meaning in common  parlance i.e. lotus.  This shows that we should prefer the popular meaning or  the meaning in common usage to the literal meaning of a word.

15.     The reason behind this principle is that language is a tool of  communication between human beings, and hence that meaning should be  given to a word which helps communication between people.   If the speaker  of a word uses it in one sense but the hearer understands it in another sense,  there will be a communication gap.  Hence that meaning should be attributed  to a word which everyone would understand as it has acquired a special  meaning in common parlance.

16.     Keeping the above principle in mind we may now consider whether  an Animal Driven Vehicle can be said to be an agricultural implement.  In  our opinion it cannot, for the obvious reasons that in common parlance  implements are usually regarded as tools used by human beings with their  hands (and sometimes with their legs), or driven by animal power.  Thus, a  plough which is driven by oxen or horses would be regarded as an  agricultural implement.  Similarly, a hoe or a spade would be agricultural  implements.  However, a bullock cart which is used for carrying the  agricultural produce from the farm to the market or the sugar factory cannot,  in our opinion, be regarded as an agricultural implement, because in  common parlance it would not be regarded by people as an implement.  A  bullock cart is surely not a tool, though the plough which it pulls (for  furrowing the land) is certainly a tool and therefore, an agricultural

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

implement.   

17.     Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this  Court in M/s. D.H. Brothers Pvt. Ltd.  vs.  Commissioner of Sales Tax,  U.P. AIR 1991 SC 1992, in which it was held that sugarcane crushers are  not agricultural implements.  In that decision this Court held that a sugarcane  crusher is not used in the agricultural operation, rather it is only when the  agricultural operations have ended and the cane harvested and transported to  the cane crusher that the activity of the cane crusher begins.  Learned  counsel submitted that in the present case also the ADV carts which are used  for transporting the sugarcane from the agricultural field to the sugar factory  are not part of the agricultural operations, as these ADV carts begin their  activity of transportation only after the agricultural operations are over.   

18.     It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission because we have  earlier held that an ADV cart is not an agricultural implement since it is not  a tool.  In view of the above we find no merit in this appeal and it is  accordingly dismissed.  No costs

19.     Before parting with this case, we would like to say that it is deeply  regrettable that in our Courts of law, lawyers quote Maxwell and Craies but  nobody refers to the Mimansa Principles of Interpretation.  Today our so- called educated people are largely ignorant about the great intellectual  achievements of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury they have  bequeathed us.  The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation is part of that  intellectual treasury, but it is distressing to note that apart from a reference to  these principles in the judgment of Sir John Edge, the then Chief Justice of  Allahabad High Court, in Beni Prasad vs. Hardai Devi, (1892) ILR 14 All  67 (FB), there has been almost no utilization of these principles even in our  own country (except by one of us, M. Katju, J. in some of his judgments  delivered at Allahabad High Court and in this Court vide M/s. Ispat  Industries Ltd.  vs.  Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai JT 2006(12) SC  379.       20.     It may be mentioned that the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation were  our traditional principles of interpretation laid down by Jaimini whose Sutras  were explained by Shabar, Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakar, etc.  These Mimansa  Principles were regularly used by our great jurists like Vijnaneshwar (author  of Mitakshara), Jimutvahana (author of Dayabhaga), Nanda Pandit (author  of \021Dattak Mimansa\022) etc. whenever they found any conflict between the  various Smritis or any ambiguity or incongruity therein.  There is no reason  why we cannot use these principles on appropriate occasions.  However, it is  a matter of deep regret that these principles have rarely been used in our law  Courts.  It is nowhere mentioned in our Constitution or any other law that  only Maxwell\022s Principles of Interpretation can be used by the Court.  We  can use any system of interpretation which helps us solve a difficulty.  In  certain situations Maxwell\022s principles would be more appropriate, while in  other situations the Mimansa principles may be more suitable.   

21.     Since we have used a Mimansa principle in this judgment we thought  it necessary to briefly mention about the Mimansa principles of  interpretation (the original works on Mimansa are all in Sanskrit, but there is  a very elucidating book in English on the subject by K.L. Sarkar called \021The  Mimansa Rules of Interpretation\022 published in the Tagore Law Lecture  Series).