Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - (1.) THIS group of petitions raises a question as to the interpretation of Entry 15 of Schedule 1 to the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (the Cess Act, in short). Under this schedule various industries have been specified as liable to levy of cess under the said enactment. The question which falls for determination is whether the petitioners' industries are covered by Entry 15 of the aforesaid schedule which speaks of processing of animal or vegetable products industry. Most of the questions sought to be raised by Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions, stand concluded, in our opinion, by the decision of this court in the case of the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Budaun v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others : AIR 1987 All 298 Sri Sudhir Chandra, however, so contended that this decision does not lay down the law correctly.
(2.) HAVING given a careful consideration to the submissions of Sri Sudhir Chandra, we are not persuaded that the law laid down as to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Cess Act by the Division Bench in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., (supra) requires reconsideration by a larger Bench as we find ourselves in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench in that case. In Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) the argument raised was that sugar industry was not an industry covered by Entry 15 of the First Schedule quoted above and, therefore, the petitioner which was running sugar mills was not liable to the levy and collection of cess under the aforesaid enactment. After a very exhaustive analysis of the relevant provisions of both the Cess Act as well as the parent Act, namely, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 the Bench repelled the argument. In interpreting schedule 1 to the Cess act and the class of industries specified thereunder, the Bench rightly stressed that the cess Act has to be read along with the parent act, viz. the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the 1974 Act, in brief). Another postulate on which the Bench proceeded was that in construing the scope of Entry 15 of Schedule 1 to the Cess Act, the purpose of the enactment as well as the mischief designed to be curbed by the law makers must be kept in view. The Bench observed: - - Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, we are of the view that while finding meaning of a word, it is necessary that the legislative purpose is taken into consideration. If the purpose is ignored, the legislative intent would get lost in be -wilderness.......Another principle which has to be kept in view while interpreting entry 15 of Schedule I is the context in which that was made......it has been said by some one that words are partly known by their backgrounds, their past, like men, and like men they do not have their full significance when standing alone, but are known by the company they keep. Full effect of the word is felt only when the context in which it has occurred is not ignored......we have not only to consider the Cess Act, but also the Pollution Act.
(3.) WE entirely agree with the learned Judges that in construing the provisions of the Cess Act, the purpose and objections of the 1974 Act must be kept in view. The true meaning and scope of the entries of the First Schedule of the Cess Act hence cannot be ascertained and appreciated divorced from the context of the 1974 Act. This has been made explicit by the statement of objects and reasons of the Cess Act which unmistakably indicates that the Cess Act was being enacted for providing adequate funds to the State Boards for their effective functioning, i.e. for the: efficient discharge of the statutory functions and duties cast on the State Boards under the 1974 Act.;