# MADANLAL MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 293
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1989-11-28
- **Bench:** S. Ranganathan, N.D. Ojha, J.S. Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madanlal-manoharlal-and-ors-etc-etc-v-state-of-haryana-and-anr-10584
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 2(a)
and Sch~du/e Item 41-Sheep hair-Whether covered by wool (Oon)" and
consequently agricultural produce.
Words and Phrases: Wool (Oon)-Meaning of.
These writ petitions were filed by licencesed dealers who
manufacture woollen fabrics and blankets. They pnrchase sheep hair
and make them yarn for use in manufacturing the above items. The
challenge is against the insistence of the State Govt. to treat sheep hair
as agricultural produce under the Punjab Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1961 and requiring the petitioners to obtain licence and
pay market fee for transactions in sheep hair.
It has been contended by the petitioners that even though goat
hair and camel hair are included in the schedule, sheep hair is not
included and hence sheep hair is not agricultural produce within the
meaning of the Act. As regards item No. 41, Wool (Oon) appearing in
the schedule, it was contended that wool is a manufactured, item of
sheep hair and not sheep hair itself and the word "wool" according to
its dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including
sheep.
Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 Item No. 41 of the schedule after the word "wool"
uses the word "Oon" also within brackets which indicates as to what
was really intended by the us of the word "wool". Indeed, in the Hindi
version of the Act item No. 41 of the schedule uses tlieword "Oon" only
and does not at all use the word "wool". The raw-material out of which
a textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool. Not only the textile
fibre but also the soil under-coat of various animals including sheep has
itself been described as wool. Wool has almost invariably been used in
the context of sheep hair. [295G; 296A]
293
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
1.2 Interpreting item No. 41 Wool (Oon) of the schedule in the
A light of the above, there seems to be no manner of doubi that the word
"wool" has been used therein only in the sense in which the word
"oon" is understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer in the
popular sense namely that which people conversant with the word
'Oon' would attribute to it. This intention is apparent from the
B circumstance that care has been taken to specifically include goat-hair
and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the schedule. Had wool (oon) been
used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense, it would have automatically included goat-hair and camel-hair and the specific inclusion of
Goat-hair and Camel-hair at item No. 75 and 76 would have been
wholly unnecessary. Thus the word 'Wool (Oon)' has obviously been
used in the popular sense and not in the sense used in scientific and
C technical terminology which the traders and the consumers are not
normally supposed to know. [297D-H; 298A]
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Onion of India, [1985] 3 SCC
284 and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper
D Co., [1989] 1SCC150, relied on.
E
Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 23, relied on.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1695 of
1987 Etc. Etc.
(Under Article; 23 of the Consitution of India).
Govind Mukhotey, J.D. Jain and B.B. Sinha for the Petitioners.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mahabir Singh, K.B. Rohtagi and Shashank
F Shekhar for the Respondents.

## Text

MADANLAL MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 28, 1989
[S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.)
Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 2(a)
and Sch~du/e Item 41-Sheep hair-Whether covered by wool (Oon)" and
consequently agricultural produce.
Words and Phrases: Wool (Oon)-Meaning of.
These writ petitions were filed by licencesed dealers who
manufacture woollen fabrics and blankets. They pnrchase sheep hair
and make them yarn for use in manufacturing the above items. The
challenge is against the insistence of the State Govt. to treat sheep hair
as agricultural produce under the Punjab Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1961 and requiring the petitioners to obtain licence and
pay market fee for transactions in sheep hair.
It has been contended by the petitioners that even though goat
hair and camel hair are included in the schedule, sheep hair is not
included and hence sheep hair is not agricultural produce within the
meaning of the Act. As regards item No. 41, Wool (Oon) appearing in
the schedule, it was contended that wool is a manufactured, item of
sheep hair and not sheep hair itself and the word "wool" according to
its dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including
sheep.
Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 Item No. 41 of the schedule after the word "wool"
uses the word "Oon" also within brackets which indicates as to what
was really intended by the us of the word "wool". Indeed, in the Hindi
version of the Act item No. 41 of the schedule uses tlieword "Oon" only
and does not at all use the word "wool". The raw-material out of which
a textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool. Not only the textile
fibre but also the soil under-coat of various animals including sheep has
itself been described as wool. Wool has almost invariably been used in
the context of sheep hair. [295G; 296A]
293
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
1.2 Interpreting item No. 41 Wool (Oon) of the schedule in the
A light of the above, there seems to be no manner of doubi that the word
"wool" has been used therein only in the sense in which the word
"oon" is understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer in the
popular sense namely that which people conversant with the word
'Oon' would attribute to it. This intention is apparent from the
B circumstance that care has been taken to specifically include goat-hair
and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the schedule. Had wool (oon) been
used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense, it would have automatically included goat-hair and camel-hair and the specific inclusion of
Goat-hair and Camel-hair at item No. 75 and 76 would have been
wholly unnecessary. Thus the word 'Wool (Oon)' has obviously been
used in the popular sense and not in the sense used in scientific and
C technical terminology which the traders and the consumers are not
normally supposed to know. [297D-H; 298A]
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Onion of India, [1985] 3 SCC
284 and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper
D Co., [1989] 1SCC150, relied on.
E
Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 23, relied on.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1695 of
1987 Etc. Etc.
(Under Article; 23 of the Consitution of India).
Govind Mukhotey, J.D. Jain and B.B. Sinha for the Petitioners.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mahabir Singh, K.B. Rohtagi and Shashank
F Shekhar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
OJHA, J. The petitioners in these writ petitions are licenced
dealers having factories and manufacturing units at Panipat in the
(; State of Haryana and consume sheep hair for manufacturing woollen
fabrics and blankets. In order to carry on their trade they purchase
sheep-hair to get yarn manufactured out of it for being used in its turn
for manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets.
The only question urged in these writ petitions is as to whether
H sheep-hair was an agricultural produce within the meaning of the said
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (OJHA, J.)
295
term as defined under Section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so as to attract
the provisions of the said Act to it. The term "agricultural produce"
according to its definition contained under Section 2( a) of the Act
means all produce, whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the Schedule to the
Act. On its plain meaning, therefore, only such produce as is specified
in the Schedule to the Act shall fall within the term "agricultural produce". Section 38 of the· Act confers power on the State Government,
by notification, to add to the Schedule any other item of agricultural
produce or amend or omit any item of such produce specified therein.
The relevant items in the Schedule on which reliance has been placed
by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that
sheep-hair was not an agricultural produce are items 41. Wool (Oon),
75. Goat-hair and 76. Camel-hair.
It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that even
though Goat-hair and Camel-hair have been included in the Schedule,
Sheep-hair had not been so included and consequently sheep-hair was
not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act and the
insistence of the authorities that the petitioners should obtain a licence
and pay market fee with regard to their transaction in respect of sheephair was unjustified. With r~ard to item No. 41 namely Wool (Oori),
it was urged firstly that wool is the manufactured item of sheep-hair
and not sheep-hair itself and secondly the word 'wool' according to its
dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including
sheep. Reference in this behalf has been made to the Dictionary of
Scientific and Technical Terms-M.C. Graw-Hill. According to it
wool is a·'textifo fibre made from raw wool characterised by absorbency, resiliency and insulation. It further states that wool is the soft
undercoat of various animals such as sheep, angora, ·goat, camel,
alpaca, llamma and vicuna.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined
A
B
c
D
E
F
to agree with the submission made by \earned counsel for the petitioners. Before dealing with the matter further it would be useful to
notice at this place that item No. 41 of the Schedule after the word
G
'wool' uses the word 'Oon' also within brackets which indicates as to
what was really intended by the use of the word 'Wool'. Indeed, in the
Hindi version of the Act, item No. 41 of the Schedule uses the word
'Oon' only and does not at all use the word 'wool'. Now to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the first submission
made by him that the word 'wool' contemplated manufactured item of H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
sheep-hair and not sheep-hair itself, it belied even by the dictionary
A meaning of the said word relied on by him. Firstly, the raw-material
out of which a textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool.
Secondly, not only the textile fibre but also the soft undercoat of
various animals including sheep has itself been described as wool. It is,
B
c
therefore, apparent that not only the textile fibre made out of raw
wool but even the soft undercoat of the various animals including
sheep, according to the dictionary aforesaid, would be wool. Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the heading wool in vol. 23, states: "Animal fibres are usually spoken of as hair, with the exception of the coat
of the sheep which is usually termed wool". A perusal of what has
been stated under the heading wool therein would indicate that wool
has almost invariably been used in the context of sheep-hair.
In Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, [1985] 3
SCC page 284 after referring to several earlier decisions of this Court it
was held that in determining the meaning or connotation of words and
expressions describing an article in a tariff schedule those words and
o expressions should be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and the customer when goods are
marketable. The same rule of interpretation was reiterated in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpurv. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., [1989) 1
sec page 150. It was held:
E
F
G
H
"It is well settled, as mentioned before, that where no
definition is provided in the statute itself, as in this case for
ascertaining the correct meaning of a fiscal entry reference
to a dictionary is not always safe. The correct guide, it
appears in such a case, is the context and tlie trade meaning
xxxxx
The trade meaning is one which is prevalent in that particular trade where the goods is known or traded. If special type
of goods is subject matter of a fiscal entry then that entry
must be understood in the context of that particular trade,
bearing in mind that particular word xxxxx
It is a well settled principle of construction, as. mentioned
before, that where the word has a scientific or technical
meaning and also an ordinary meaning according to common parlance, it is in the latter sense that in a taxing statute
the word must be held to have been used, unless contrary
intention is clearly expressed by the legislature. This princi-
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (OJHA, J.(
297
pie is well settled by a long line of decisions of Canadian,
American, Australian and Indian cases. Pollock, J. pointed
out in Grenfell v. I.R.C., [1876) 1 Ex. D 242, 248 that if a
statute contains language which is capable of being
construed in a popular sense, such a statute is not to be
construed according to the strict or technical meaning of
the language contained in it, but is to be construd in its
popular sense, meaning of course, by the words "popular
sense" that which people conversant with the subject
matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to
it. The ordinary words in every day use are, therefore, to be
construed according to their popular sense. The same view
was reiterated by Story, J. in 200 Chests of Tea (1824) 9
Wheaton US 435, 438 where he observed that the legislature does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists, or
geologists, or botanists."
In our opinion, the aforesaid rule of interpretation would apply
even to the interpretation of the items of the Schedule to the Act
keeping in view the nature and purpose of the enactment. Interpreting
item No. 41 Wool(Oon) of the Schedule in this light there seems to be
no mannner of doubt that the word 'wool' has been used therein only
in the sense in which the word 'Oon' is understood in the trade by the
dealer and the consumer in the popular sense namely that which
people conversant with the word 'Oon' would attribute to it. If anyone
goes to the market to purchase wool (oon) he would be offered only
sheep-hair and not goat-hair or camel-hair or for the matter of that the
hair of any other animal. Indeed, there is intrinsic evidence in the
. Schedule itself of the fact that in the English version the word 'Wool
(Oon)' and in the Hindi version 'Oon' only at item No. 41 has been
used in the same popular sense namely that of sheep-hair. This intention is apparent from the circumstances that care has been taken to
"Pecifically include goat-hair and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the
Schedule. Had Wool (Oon) been used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners it wonld have automatically included Goat-hair and Camel-hair
also and the specific inclusion of Goat-hair and Camel-hair at items 75
and 7_6 would have been wholly unnecessary. Consequently, their
specific inclusion at items 75 and 76 is a clear indication of the awareness of the fact that the trade meaning of the word 'Wool (Oon)' which
iS'prevalent in the popular sense would be sheep-hair alone and as such
unless goat-hair and camel-hair are included as specific items in the
Schedule they will not be treated as agricultural produce. The word
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A 'Wool (Oon)' has obviously been used at item No. 41 of the Schedule
in the aforesaid popular sense and not in the sense used in scientific
and technical terminology which the traders and the consumers are not
normally supposed to know.
B
('
D
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are clearly of the opm10n
thatsheep-hair falls under the item No. 41 of the Schedule namely
"Wool (Oon)" as contained in the English version and "Oon" only as
contained in the Hindi version of the Act. Sheep-hair is consequently
an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act so that the
various provisions therein with regard to agricultural produce are applicable to sheep-hair also.
In the result, we find no merit in these writ petitions. They are
accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall
be no order as to costs.
G.N.
Petitions dismissed.