1965 (2) TMI 122 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent contravened Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 by not utilizing the iron and steel for the specified purpose.
2. Interpretation of the term "use" under Clause 7 of the Control Order.
3. Whether the application for the permit can be referred to for construing the conditions of the permit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956:
The respondent obtained permits for acquiring iron and steel for constructing a public temple and dharamshala. The prosecution alleged that the respondent did not use the materials for the stated purpose. The Magistrate found that the respondent had purchased at least 18 tons of iron but utilized only 3/4 ton in the construction at Tinhari, which was completed between 1943-52, indicating no portion of the iron obtained was used for the intended purpose. The Sessions Judge, however, found no evidence that the respondent sold the excess iron and suggested the possibility of the iron being retained elsewhere. The High Court upheld this view, stating that mere non-use does not constitute a contravention of Clause 7.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Use" under Clause 7:
The appellant argued that "use" should include "kept for eventual use for another purpose," relying on a broad interpretation from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that "use" in Clause 7 implies positive utilization or disposal and not mere non-use. The Court emphasized that the context of the Control Order does not support the inclusion of storage within the term "use" without a specified time for utilization.

3. Reference to the Application for Construing Permit Conditions:
The High Court held that only the permit, not the application, could be referred to for determining the conditions of use. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's argument that the permit's condition to use materials "for the purpose for which it was asked for and has been given" implicitly refers to the application. However, the applications did not specify a particular location for the construction, and the argument that the iron was intended for use within Deoria district was not substantiated by any jurisdictional orders.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent did not contravene Clause 7 of the Control Order as there was no evidence of misuse or unauthorized disposal of the iron. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.