EXPRESIO UNIUS EXCLUSION ALTERIUS :
Meaning and its application:- This maxim means that mention of one or more things of a
particular class may be regarded as excluding all other members of that class. Further more,
when an act used two words, one of which includes the other, the more general one would
naturally exclude the less general one.
An illustration of the application of this maxim in an Indian case may be cited. In
considering the applicability of the maxim to sections 68 and 87 of the Bombay District
Municipality, it was observed by the HC of Bombay that the rule is not of universal application
and it cannot be applied unless the statute by its language shows all things different in genus
and description from those which are enumerated are intended to be excluded. When the act
gives general powers to the Municipality to fix the amount or rate at which it desires to make the
class or classes of persons or property habile: it is not proper to suggest that, because some
specific instances are enumerated wherein it is said that the municipality can impose rates upon
certain basis, such enumeration has the effect of limiting municipality’s choice of the basis upon
which the taxes can be levied. It was accordingly held that eh aforesaid sections were not
intended to deal only with the tax specified in section 59 9a) (i) of the act, but covered also any
other tax which was imposed in the form of a rate on buildings or lands (Shidrao v. municipality
of Athni, A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 21.)
The gist of the decision on the case is that this rule has no application where it would
lead to inconsistency and injustice and would make the provision of the statute in question
uncertain and capricious in its operation.
Meaning and its application:- This maxim means that mention of one or more things of a
particular class may be regarded as excluding all other members of that class. Further more,
when an act used two words, one of which includes the other, the more general one would
naturally exclude the less general one.
An illustration of the application of this maxim in an Indian case may be cited. In
considering the applicability of the maxim to sections 68 and 87 of the Bombay District
Municipality, it was observed by the HC of Bombay that the rule is not of universal application
and it cannot be applied unless the statute by its language shows all things different in genus
and description from those which are enumerated are intended to be excluded. When the act
gives general powers to the Municipality to fix the amount or rate at which it desires to make the
class or classes of persons or property habile: it is not proper to suggest that, because some
specific instances are enumerated wherein it is said that the municipality can impose rates upon
certain basis, such enumeration has the effect of limiting municipality’s choice of the basis upon
which the taxes can be levied. It was accordingly held that eh aforesaid sections were not
intended to deal only with the tax specified in section 59 9a) (i) of the act, but covered also any
other tax which was imposed in the form of a rate on buildings or lands (Shidrao v. municipality
of Athni, A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 21.)
The gist of the decision on the case is that this rule has no application where it would
lead to inconsistency and injustice and would make the provision of the statute in question
uncertain and capricious in its operation.
