The ruling came on a plea challenging a Delhi government notification which exempted vehicles carrying food grains from the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC), but not those transporting pulses.
Disagreeing with the government's stand, Justice Vibhu Bakhru said, "The word grains in the context of food stuffs would obviously imply food grains and the said term plainly includes pulses. There is no basis to assume that the expression food grains are synonymous to cereals".
"Vehicles carrying pulses would not be subject to levy of ECC," the court said.
It said that even Government of India treats pulses as a part of food grains in the data published in this regard.
More From This Section
"On the website of Government of India, data.Gov.In, the statistics pertaining to the 'Agricultural production of different food grains from year 2003 to 2014 at all India level' includes data pertaining to production of pulses," the court said.
The Delhi government had claimed during the proceedings that "the expression food grains is used interchangeably and the term grains would not include pulses".
Rejecting the argument, the court said, "In terms of logic, this is akin to a fallacy of 'illicit major' -- a formal fallacy in categorical syllogism that arises because a major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion (All A are B; no C are A; therefore, no C are B).
"Whilst, it is correct that cereals are food grains, however, that does not mean that pulses are not. Food grains, is a larger group and would include both cereals and pulses," the court also said.