Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1067
Regulation 37 would be rendered
inoperative. There being no requirement
of sending the papers to the Inspector, the
intention appears to be clear that the role
of the Inspector stands excluded at that
stage. The question of granting prior
sanction without any purpose would be a
meaningless exercise, and therefore, we
would refrain from rendering an
interpretation that leads to futility.
56. While applying the rules of
harmonious construction, the Court has to
be cautious in interpreting the provisions,
which may lead to anomalous results. We
find it apt to record that the rules of
harmonious construction, while
interpreting such statutes, immediately
come into play in a situation of the
present kind and reference in this
connection can be made from
Interpretation of Statues by Justice
Markandey Katju in which it has been
stated as follow:
"Where different interpretations of a
statute are possible, the court can adopt
that which is just, reasonable and sensible
as it can be presumed that the legislature
would have used the words in the sense
which least offends our sense of justice.
Similarly, if the harmonical construction
leads to some absurd or repugnant result
or inconsistency with the rest of the
instrument, it may be departed from so as
to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency.
There may be cases where there appears
to be inconsistency or repugnancy in a
statute and in such cases the principle of
harmonious construction is applied. This
is, however, subject to the principle that
the special rule will override the general
rule. Similarly, it is ordinarily not open to
the court to add words to a statute on the
grounds that there is an omission in the
words used in the statute."
(Interpretation of Statutes, by Justice
Markandey Katju, Judge Supreme Court
of India.)
57. In the case of Padmasundara
Rao and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
and others, [AIR 2002 SCC 1334], a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
ruled that the principle of casus omissus
can be permitted to be pressed into
service in case of a clear necessity and
when reason for it is found in the four
corners of the statute itself but at the same
time a casus omissus should not be
readily inferred.
58. In the case of Magor and St.
Mellons Rural District Council Vs.
Newport Corporation, [(1951) 2 All E.R.
839], the remarks of Lord Denning in the
Court of Appeals has been quoted, which
read as follows :
"We sit here to find out the intention
of Parliament and Ministers and carry it
out, and we do this better by filling in the
gaps and making sense of the enactment
than by opening it up to destructive
analysis."
59. It has also been held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh and another Vs. The State
of Vindhya Pradesh [AIR 1953 SCC 394]
that the Court has to avoid a construction,
which may render devoid any part of the
statute. It has been held by the Supreme
Court in the case of Nasiruddin and
others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2
SCC 577] in paragraph 37 that the use of
negative words are mandatory in
character and the Court has to proceed
accordingly. Sounding a caution to the
Courts while interpreting a Rule, the