Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: harmonious construction in M/S Gurmail Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2017Matching Fragments
17. In Dwarka Prasad's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that the golden rule of interpretation is to read the whole section inclusive of proviso in such manner that they mutually throw light and result in harmonious construction. Relevant extracts from the said decision read as under-
"18. ............. If the rule of construction is that prima facie a proviso should be limited in its operation to the subject matter of the enacting clause, the stand we have taken is sound. To expand the enacting clause, inflated by the proviso, sins against the fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered W P No. 7798/2017 & WP No. 11608/2017 in relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso, although the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner that they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction.
21. The Supreme Court while examining the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 in a judgment reported as Premium Granites and another vs. State of T.N. and others, (1994) 2 SCC 691, held that for bringing harmonious construction, reading down a provision in the statute, is an accepted principle. The Court said as under:-
"55. In various statutes, the provision of relaxation or exemption finds place and it has been indicated that such provisions of relaxation and exemption have been noticed and upheld by this Court in some of the statutes. In the MMRD Act itself, there is such provision for relaxation, being Section 31. Such provision of relaxation in Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 is contained in Rule 66. It has been rightly contended that where in respect of prohibited categories, the law carves out restriction or relaxation, the purpose is to take out certain exceptions from the W P No. 7798/2017 & WP No. 11608/2017 prohibited area and keeping certain categories outside the purview of restrictions imposed under other provisions in the statute. In such circumstances, it will not be appropriate to hold that the exception militates with other provisions and hence should not be permitted. In our view, in interpreting the validity of a provision containing relaxation or exemption of another provision of a statute, the purpose of such relaxation and the scope and the effect of the same in the context of the purpose of the statute should be taken into consideration and if it appears that such exemption or relaxation basically and intrinsically does not violate the purpose of the statute rendering it unworkable but it is consistent with the purpose of the statute, there will be no occasion to hold that such provision of relaxation or exemption is illegal or the same ultra vires other provisions of the statute. The question of exemption or relaxation ex hypothesi indicates the existence of some provisions in the statute in respect of which exemption or relaxation is intended for some obvious purpose.
56. There is no manner of doubt that for bringing harmonious construction, reading down a provision in the statute, is an accepted principle and such exercise has been made by this Court in a number of decisions, reference to which has already been made. But we do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the purpose sought to be achieved by Rule 39, such reading down is necessary so as to limit the application of Rule 39 only for varying some terms and conditions of a lease. If the State Government has an authority to follow a particular policy in the matter of quarrying of granite and it can change the provisions in the Mineral Concession Rules from time to time either by incorporating a particular rule or amending the same according to its perception of the exigencies, it will not be correct to hold that on each and every occasion when such perception requires a change in the matter of policy of quarrying a minor mineral in the State, particular provision of the Mineral Concession Rules has got to be amended. On the contrary, if a suitable provision empowering exemption or relaxation of other provisions in the Mineral Concession Rules is W P No. 7798/2017 & WP No. 11608/2017 made by confining its exercise in an objective manner consistent with the MMRD Act and in furtherance of the cause of mineral development and in public interest, by giving proper guidelines, such provision containing relaxation or exemption cannot be held to be unjustified or untenable on the score of violating the other provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules."
24. Thus, in view of the principle of statutory interpretation that no word in statute is superfluous and each word has its meaning, the provisos of the statute have to be read as a whole by giving harmonious construction to all the provisions of the law so that none of the provision is rendered redundant. Keeping in view the principle of harmonious construction, the third proviso W P No. 7798/2017 & WP No. 11608/2017 is additional relaxation to Rule 4 of the Rules and 68(1) of the Rules. Therefore, third proviso cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.