Munshi Abdul Wahab Sahib and Another vs Emperor

Reilly, J.—The two petitioners have been convicted of working a ferry in contravention of Section 9 of the Canals and Public Ferries Act,

18S0, and their convictions have been upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge of West Godavari. The case against the petitioners is that on 20th

November, 1926, they carried passengers on the steam launch ""Maulana"" across a channel, that is the Vasistha Godavari River, within the notified

limits of a ferry declared by the Government u/s 8 of the Act to be subject to the provisions of the Act. Exhibit A, dated 30th December, 1895,

has been produced as the notification of the Government, declaring the ferry under the name of the ""The Narsapur Steam Ferry"" to be subject to

the provisions of the Act and purporting to fix its limits. It is argued for the petitioners (1) that this notification of the Government was ultra vires

and (2) that the petitioners did not work a ferry within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act.

The Act is not very easy to understand in some respects. In Section 3 a ferry is defined as ""a place at which goods, animals or passengers are

conveyed across a channel by means of vessels,"" That is a curious definition and not in accordance with the meaning of a ferry in English Law. And

it is almost impossible to reconcile with Section 9 of the Act, which speaks of ""rights of ferry."" But we must take the definition as it stands. It was

open to the Government u/s 8 of the Act to declare the place called ""The Narsapur Steam Ferry"", at which goods etc., were conveyed across the

river, to be subject to the provisions of the Act and that is what they must be supposed to have intended to do by the notification, Ex. A. The

limits, of that place they were also entitled to define under that section. But the limits set out in Ex. A are very surprising. They are shown in the

notification as ""(1) Narsapur, (2) Sakinetipalli, (3) Appanaramullanka, (4) Chinchinada and (5) Razole."" It is admitted that Razole, which is on the

left bank of the river, is 12 miles from Narsapur, which is below it on the right bank, and that the other places named are between them,

Sakkinetipalli and Appanaramunilanka being on the left bank and Chinchinada on the right bank. If the places named are intended to indicate the

limits of one ferry, then the upstream limit must be Razole and the down stream limit Narsapur. In that case there is no point in mentioning the

intermediate places at all. It would, however, be extraordinary to define the limits of a place where goods etc., are conveyed across the river so as

to include a length of 12 miles on each side of the river. The learned Sessions Judge appears to take the view that the notification defines the ferry

as from place No. 1 (Narsapur) to place No. 2 (Sakkinetipali) from place No. 2 to place No. 3, and so on. That would be in effect to declare 4

successive ferries, two of which would extend 4 miles up the river besides crossing it. Apart from the difficulty of fitting such ferry into the definition

of a ferry in the Act, there appear to be two strong reasons against accepting this interpretation of the notification. Firstly, it is almost impossible to

imagine why, if the Government intended to declare a ferry from place No. 1 to place No. 2 another ferry from place No, 2 to place No. 3 and so

on, that was not clearly stated in the notification. It is incredible that the Government should go out of their way to make a notification to the public

regarding a simple matter unnecessarily obscure or mystifying. Secondly, the succession of places named cannot indicate a succession of ferries

between those places, as place No. 2 and place No. 3 are on the same side of the river and under the Act there can be no ferry between two

places on the same side of the river. Mr. Ganapathi for the Public Prosecutor has urged that u/s 13 of the General Clauses Act ""place"" in the

definition must be understood as including places. I do not think that the principle of that section can be applied to the definition in that way. But the

suggestion perhaps indicates the way in which the notification should be read, as declaring not a single ferry but a group of 5 ferries, the 5 places

named being mentioned as ""limits"" to show where the 5 crossings of the River are. If the notification is to be read as specifying 5 places at which

goods etc., are to be conveyed across the river subject to the provisions of the Act, it becomes intelligible though not very explicit, and there is

meaning in mentioning the 3 intervening places. If the proper construction of the notification is that the conveyance of goods etc., across the river at

Narsapur at Sakki-netipalli, at Appanaramunilanka, at Chinchinada and at Razole is to be subject to the provisions of the Act, it is not ultra vires.

For practical purposes it may be inconvenient that the places respectively opposite to the places named are not specified. But the notification

would not be ultra vires merely because the Government had not chosen to define those opposite places, the result would merely be that any place

approximately opposite to any of the named places could be regarded as the other end of that particular crossing. In effect the Government would

have notified 5 ferries instead of one. If it were permissible to interpret the notification Ex. A, by the view which the Government themselves took

of it 9 years later, it would be useful to notice that the notification Ex. C, dated 1st November, 1905, shows that they were then under the

impression that there were 5 ferries, one at each of the places named.

But the contention put forward for the prosecution in this case is that by the notification Ex. A, the whole river from Razole to Narsapur, 12

miles below has been declared to be a ferry subject to the provisions of the Act with the result that no person not ""duly authorised"" may convey

goods, animals, or passengers across the river at any point in that stretch of 12 miles. I do not think that the power given by Section 8 of the Act to

define the limits of a ferry which it must be remembered is by the definition ""a place"" could by any reasonable stretch of language be interpreted so

as to enable the Government to include in the place concerned both sides of the river for a distance of 12 miles. It must be remembered that the

Act gives to the Government powers very seriously to restrict the liberty of the subject and those powers must be strictly construed. But the

prosecution goes, and has to go for the purpose of the case, much further than this. It is contended that the notification Ex. A, not only makes it

unlawful for anyone not ""duly authorised"" to convey goods, animals, or passengers across the river at any point between Razole and Narsapur, but

also makes it unlawful for anyone not so authorised to convey goods, animals or passengers up or down the river between Razole and Narsapur.

There is nothing in the Act, so far as it deals with ferries, to enable the Government bo to restrict the right of navigation along the river. u/s 4 of the

Act the Government may declare the river to be a canal subject to the provisions of the Act and may then u/s 5 require all vessels using the river to

be licensed or registered. But it has been stated before me that no notification u/s 4 has been issued in respect of this part of the river. Without

anotification u/s 4 the Act gives the Government no power to regulate navigation up and down the river and the prevention of navigation, up and

down the river is wholly outside the scope of the Act. It has been suggested in the course of the arguments that, because Razole is on one side of

the river and Narsapur, which is reached after going 12 miles down the river and round 2 semi circular bends, is on the other side, the voyage from

Razole to Narsapur can be regarded as one across the river. That argument carries its rejection on its face. To suggest that such a voyage is one

''across'' the river is an abuse of language. There is nothing unreasonable or ultra vires in the notification Ex. A, if it is interpreted, as I think it must

be interpreted, and as the Government themselves later on interpreted it as declaring a series of 5 ferries across the river at the 5 places named. So

interpreted the notification is entirely within the language and scope of the Act. It is not very easy to reconcile the schedule of tolls attached to the

notification with that interpretation. But, as the notification purports to have been issued u/s 8 of the Act, I think we are bound to interpret it, so far

as possible, in consonance with that section and, if there is anything in the schedule which suggests an interpretation not in consonance with the

section to ignore that for the purpose of interpretation. If it had been the intention of the Government that notification to declare the whole of both

banks of the river for the distance of 12 miles from Razole to Narsapur a place at which goods, animals, and passengers are conveyed across the

river, and still more if it had been their intention, as it contended, to prevent navigation up and down the river between Razole and Narsapur, then,

in my opinion, the notification would have been clearly ultra vires.

This brings me to the second contention of the petitioners. What has been found is that the launch ""Maulana"", owned by petitioner and managed

by petitioner No. 2 on 20th November, 1926, conveyed passengers (on payment of passage money, I understand, though that does not appear in

the records before me) from Narsapur to Razole, calling at Sakkinetipalli, Appanaramunilanka and Chinchinada on the way. That it is alleged was,

working a ferry"" in contravention of Section 9 of the Act. What Section 9 makes unlawful is conveying goods, animals, or passengers, across a

channel within the defined limits of a ferry declared u/s 8. The voyage of the Maulana on 20th November, 1920, cannot by any reasonable use of

language be described as across a channel (the river is a channel for the purpose of the Act). It was a voyage up the river such as the Government

has no power under the Act, and I presume no wish to prohibit. The charge of working a ferry in contravention of Section 9 is clearly not made

out.

The convictions and sentences are set aside, and the petitioners are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. 6. In Criminal Revision Case

No. 66 of 1928.

This is a case similar to Criminal Revision Case No. 65 of 1928. The convictions and sentences are set aside, and the petitioners are acquitted.

The fines, if paid, will be refunded.