Control order interpretation limits cannot be enlarged, and joint possession may be treated as a single holding under foodgrain restrictions.

The explanation to Section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 was confined to excess stock up to five maunds above the maximum prescribed by the control order and could not be expanded to create a five-maund grace over the separate limit in the proviso to Section 7(2)(b). The term "person" in paragraph 10 of the West Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1951 was wide enough to include joint possessors, so a common holding could not be split to claim the maximum quantity separately for each individual. The household explanation applied only where the stock was in the possession or control of household members, with liability then falling on the head of the household.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the explanation to Section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 created a grace of five maunds over and above the limit in the proviso to Section 7(2)(b); (ii) Whether two persons in joint possession could contend that each was entitled to hold the maximum quantity separately under paragraph 10 of the West Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the explanation to Section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 created a grace of five maunds over and above the limit in the proviso to Section 7(2)(b).

Analysis: The explanation was confined to cases where the excess possession did not exceed five maunds above the maximum quantity so prescribed by the control order. It could not be read as adding five maunds to the limit of twice the maximum quantity mentioned in the proviso. The language of the explanation was specific and could not be expanded by substitution of different words. The explanation nevertheless had operative effect in States where the prescribed maximum was lower than five maunds.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected, and the explanation did not give a grace of five maunds over twice the prescribed maximum.

Issue (ii): Whether two persons in joint possession could contend that each was entitled to hold the maximum quantity separately under paragraph 10 of the West Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1951.

Analysis: The word "person" in paragraph 10 was wide enough to include a body of individuals in joint possession, as supported by the definition in the General Clauses Act, 1897. Persons in joint possession could not evade the control order by treating the holding as separate possession of half the quantity each. The household explanation operated only where the stock was in the possession or control of members of a household, in which event liability was fastened on the head of the household. Whether that factual situation existed was a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The contention failed, and joint possession could attract liability under the control order.

Final Conclusion: The commitment order was sustained, and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of a control-order explanation must remain confined to its express language, and the term "person" may include joint possessors so that statutory possession limits cannot be defeated by splitting a common holding between individuals.

---