JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondents of a writ-application and is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th October 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Special Civil Application No. 5335 of 2010, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ-application filed by the respondent herein. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal may be summarised as under: 3. The respondent herein - Life Insurance Corporation of India preferred the Special Civil Application No. 5335 of 2010 with the following prayers: "(a) Declaring that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to appoint the employees of the petitioner corporation as enumerators and/or supervisors for census works/duties under the Census Act, 1948. (b) Quashing and setting aside the communication dated 26.04.10 written by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner corporation and further quashing and setting aside the notices dated 26.04.10 issued by the respondent no. 3 to 339 employees of the petitioner corporation. (c) Quashing and setting aside the letters of appointment of the employees of the petitioner corporation as enumerators and/or supervisors issued by respondent no. 3. (d) Granting such other and further relief and passing such other and further orders as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) Awarding cost of this petition." 4. The case of the respondent herein - original petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the appellants herein have no authority or jurisdiction to appoint the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as the Enumerators or Supervisors for the work of census under the Census Act, 1948. It was argued before the learned Single Judge by the Corporation that it has been established under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956, and being a statutory body created under the Special Statute, the provisions of the Census Act, 1948, would not be applicable to it. It was also argued that the Corporation is not a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 4(A) of the Act. 5. It was also argued that the Corporation is not a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 4(A) of the Act. 5. The learned Single Judge adjudicated the writ-application filed by the Corporation and ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 14th October 2013, allowed the same holding that the employees of the Corporation cannot be deployed for the purpose of work of census under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ-application, held as under: "16. First contention which has been raised by learned senior counsel, Shri Naik with regard to the jurisdiction or authority requires consideration in light of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for an appointment of the census staff and Section 4(2) provides, The State Government may appoint persons as census-officers [with such designations as that Government may deem necessary] to take, or aid in, or supervise the taking of, the census with any specified local area and such persons, when so appointed, shall be bound to serve accordingly. Again Section 4(1) of the Act provides, The Central Government may appoint a Census Commissioner to supervise the taking of the census throughout the area in which the census is intended to be taken, and [Directors of Census Operations] to supervise the taking of the census within the several States. Section 3 of the Act provides, The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention of taking a census in the whole or any part of the territories to which this Act extends, whenever it may consider it necessary or desirable so to do and thereupon the census shall be taken. Again Section 4(4) of the Act provides, The State government may delegate to such authority as it thinks fit the power of appointing census-officer conferred by sub-section (2). Therefore it transpires that the census work is to be undertaken by the Central Government under the Act. The Central Government may appoint the Director of census operations and the persons so appointed or designated or the State Government may appoint the person as Census Officer as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore it transpires that the census work is to be undertaken by the Central Government under the Act. The Central Government may appoint the Director of census operations and the persons so appointed or designated or the State Government may appoint the person as Census Officer as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The provision of subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Act provides for delegation of the power by the State Government to such authority as it thinks for the purpose of appointing the Census Officer as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. In other words, the State Government may itself appoint or it may delegate the authority for appointing Census Officer to some authority. The provision of Section 7 of the Act referred to the power to call upon certain persons to give assistance. As it transpires from plain reading of this section, the State Government or the authority as the case may be are given the powers to call upon the persons to give assistance for such census work. The provision of clause (b) and clause (c) of Section 7, which has been referred to by learned counsel, Shri Raval for the respondent to support the contention that clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act referred to the powers which may be exercised to call the members of the District Panchayat or Municipality or other local authority and as submitted by learned counsel, Shri Rawal for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that any member or staff of any factory, firm or establishment (Emphasis Supplied) could be called as provided in sub-section (c) of Section 7 of the Act requires a close scrutiny. The sphere of operation of two Sections 4 and 7 of the Act are totally different inasmuch as enabling provision for the appointment of the Census Officer for the census work is Section 4 of the Act. Again as stated above, Section 4 of the Act clearly provides that the Central Government may appoint the Director of census qua the respective States or may authorize the State Government, meaning thereby, the powers under the statute are delegated to the State Government and the State Government may appoint its own officer. Again as stated above, Section 4 of the Act clearly provides that the Central Government may appoint the Director of census qua the respective States or may authorize the State Government, meaning thereby, the powers under the statute are delegated to the State Government and the State Government may appoint its own officer. However, further delegation as provided in clause (4) of Section 4 allowing the State Government to delegate the powers of appointment/requisition would require an examination and scrutiny of such delegation as excessive delegation of power. It is well accepted that the excessive delegation is bad in law and a person, who is having delegated power, cannot further delegate the powers or the authorities. 17. Further reading the provision of the statute, particularly, Section 4, it is enabling provision. For the purpose of appointing/requisitioning for the census work in respect of the State or the area, at the most it is the State Government which can make an appointment of a person as Census Officer in respect of the State or the area provided and does not provide any source of authority or the power for an appointment or requisition of any staff of any public corporation for such work either as Census Officer or Enumerators or Supervisor. Section 7 of the Act refers to such powers to call upon the persons to give assistance where as provided in clause (C), all officers and members of the staff of any factory, firm or establishment could be called upon to give assistance. Again reading clause (c) along with entire provision of Section 7 of the Act would make it clear that underlying purpose or idea is that any person or staff of the factory or firm or establishment could be called to give such assistance for the purpose of census work in the premises of respective factory or establishment or within the specified area of such local authorities as the case may be. In other words, clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act provides that the assistance of the respective staff or firm or establishment could be taken for such census work in respect of that area or of that establishment or the factory. In other words, clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act provides that the assistance of the respective staff or firm or establishment could be taken for such census work in respect of that area or of that establishment or the factory. As stated in the example, in the department having a big township like GSFC or Reliance or ONGC, entire establishment is having a separate township which include the residential premises and also the work place. It is in this background, in order to assist the Census Officer, the respective staff or the officer like the Factory Manager or the Manager of the organization like GSFC and ONGC may be called to assist the Census Officer appointed for such work. In order to see that the Census Officer is properly assisted for the census work and within the said township or the establishment, the local person is required to assist and arrange for the census work by providing some kind of infrastructure or assistance to see that the census work within the establishment or within the township having the residential premises and consisting of many people residing in that township could be surveyed and the census is prepared. Therefore conjoint reading of Sections 4 and 7 of the Act would make it very clear that Section 4 of the Act refers to the power of an appointment of Census Officer, Enumerators etc. for the purpose of census work either by or through Director of census appointed by the Central Government or by the State Government which in turn can appoint its own staff for the purpose of such census work. The officer of the State Government or any person on deputation can be designated as the Director of census to look after this work. On the other hand, Section 7 refers to the aspect of census as discussed above. However, point of distinction, which is required to be noted is that Section 7 does not empower or confer the power, jurisdiction or authority to make any such requisition. All that, it provides for or refer to is the power to seek the assistance and to call the persons for the assistance. Therefore, it does not refer to any power by the State Government or Central Government to make an appointment/requisition of the Census Officer from any corporation or the establishment, which has been emphasized by learned counsel, Shri Rawal. Therefore, it does not refer to any power by the State Government or Central Government to make an appointment/requisition of the Census Officer from any corporation or the establishment, which has been emphasized by learned counsel, Shri Rawal. Again reference made to the notification produced on record also requires to be considered. The first such notification is required to be noted that is the notification issued by the General Administrative Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhingar dated 11th May, 2009, which is purported to have been issued on the basis of the notification of Ministry of Home Affairs dated February, 20, 2009, which reads as under:- "S.O. 562(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948 (37 of 1948), the Central Government hereby declares that a census of the population of India shall be taken during the year 2011. The reference date for the census shall, except for the State of Jammy and Kashmir and snow bound non-synchronous areas of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, be 00.00 hours of the first day of March, 2011: Provided that for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and snow bound non-synchronous areas of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhan, the reference date shall be 00.00 hours of the first day of October, 2010." 23. It is required to be mentioned that after this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, necessary statutory amendments have been made in the Representative in People Act, particularly, Section 159 of the said Act and so as to explain scope and discretion of the Election Commissioner to requisite the service of any such staff of local authority and any other institution or undertaking etc. as amended subsequently, which is not the case herein. Further even after the amendment, when the staff of the LIC and Cooperative banks were requisitioned for such election duty, such orders have been set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 8039/2009, Writ Petition No. 8052/2009 and Writ Petition No. 8111/2009 vide judgment and order dated September, 25, 2009. The judgment has considered the exercise of such powers even after the amendment in the Representative in People Act by amendment in Section 159 of the Act, 1951, which has been amended by the Representation of People Act (Amendment) Act, 1998 with discussion on various aspects including the regulatory control of the Government Constitutional provision and also the provision and the power of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer and also Article 324(6) which term requisition of the staff for election work at the request of the Election Commissioner by President or the Governor of the State. In this judgment, reference is made to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court delivered in case of Election Commission of India (supra) much emphasizing on Article 310 and/or 311 of the Constitution of India which talk of the principles of civil services that only such staff could be requisitioned, which is under the control of President or the Governor and no any other staff over which they do not exercise control. 24. Therefore in light of the discussions made hereinabove as well as settled position of law with the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Election Commission of India (supra) addressing similar issue may be for the election duty which is also quite important in a democratic set up, the Court has set aside any such order requisitioning the staff of SBI and/or LIC. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and impugned order cannot sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 25. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed in terms of Para No. 24b. The impugned communication dated 26.04.2010 and the notices dated 26.04.2010 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Special Civil Application No. 5767 of 2010 : 26. Learned counsel, Shri Rao adopted the submissions made by learned senior counsel, Shri Naik at length. He also referred to the same judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Election Commission of India (supra) and submitted that analogy may be applied in this case also that the election work, which is equally important in the democracy is not permitted to be taken by the Election Commissioner and that too, such census work cannot be taken from the employees of the petitioner like Employees Provident Fund Organization. He therefore submitted that it is the statutory duty or the constitutional duty or the obligation of the State or the Central Government and it does not justify any such jurisdiction or power to summon anybody for the work or the duty, which is required to be carried out by the Government. He has also relied upon the judgment in case of the Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors., reported in 2010 (1) MLG 152. 27. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the submissions made by learned counsel, Shri Rao much relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in writ petition being Writ Petition No. 8039/2009, Writ Petition No. 8052/2009 and Writ Petition No. 8111/2009 vide judgment and order dated September, 25, 2009, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order requisitioning the services of the employees of the petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 28. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed in terms of Para No. 37(A). The impugned orders passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 dated 15.04.2010 and 16.04.2010 and the notices dated 27.04.2010 and 28.04.2010 issued by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute." 6. The appellants - original respondents, being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, are here before this Court with this Appeal. 7. Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has filed his written submissions. The written submissions are as under: "1. That the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating correct scheme of the Census Act. That section 7(c) of the Act refers to the fact that all officers and members of the staff of any establishment (emphasis supplied) can be called. Hence it is respectfully submitted that LIC is an establishment. That according to Law Lexicon Dictionary present respondent original petitioner would fall within the definition of establishment and accordingly appellant would be entitled to summon the services of such person. Definition of "establishment" mentioned therein as, "Establishment. - The word "establishment" as given in Webster's International Dictionary (Vol. I) at page 874. It is there stated to mean. That according to Law Lexicon Dictionary present respondent original petitioner would fall within the definition of establishment and accordingly appellant would be entitled to summon the services of such person. Definition of "establishment" mentioned therein as, "Establishment. - The word "establishment" as given in Webster's International Dictionary (Vol. I) at page 874. It is there stated to mean. "the place where one is permanently fixed for residence, or business; residence, including grounds, furniture, equipage, retinue, etc., with which one is fitted out also, an institution or place of business, with its fixtures and organized staff; as large establishment, a manufacturing establishment," The dictionary meaning also tends to show that an establishment must have a separate identifiable existence." 2. That further it is submitted that according to Section 7 of the Act when the word 'establishment' has been used, it would cover any such establishment. It is further submitted that such a system has been created for the public interest. Further according to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Hargopal & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1227 word 'establishment' has been considered and it will include the establishment in public sector. Accordingly it should have meaning and interpretation which is in furtherance of underlying purpose. Also according to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 294 it is stated that statute may be interpreted considering the intention of the Legislature. It is clear that the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language used. The intention of the Legislature is merely conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate by amending or altering the statutory provisions. That provision of section 4(2) and sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Act is required to be interpreted and accordingly section 7(1) provides for the power to call upon the persons to give the assistance and clause (c) of section 7 provides, 'all officers and members of staff of any factory, firm or establishment'. Accordingly it is submitted that when the language in the statue is empowering the authority, it must be given the widest possible amplitude and any staff of the firm, factory or establishment could be called. Accordingly it is submitted that when the language in the statue is empowering the authority, it must be given the widest possible amplitude and any staff of the firm, factory or establishment could be called. Further referring to the form or forms which are required to be filled in the census work it is clear that broad data was sought to be collected which has an enormous details, therefore the said work could be taken from the employees of such public corporation. 3. Further it is submitted that according to form, various details are required to be filed in, which are given various data to the Government for any scheme or work or function of the Government. Accordingly it was bounden duty to cooperate in such work. That Section 2 of the Act empowers the Union Government to delegate or empowers the State Government for the purpose of making an appointment of the officer for the purpose of census. According to Citizenship Act also along with the statement for census, data which was collected was under the Citizenship Act and the Rules. As provided in section 2(d) of the Citizenship Act, ' Director of Citizen Registration' means the Director of Census in a State or Union territory appointed by the Central Government under the Census Act, 1948 (37 of 1948), who shall also functions as the Director of Citizen Registration in the State, or as the case may be, in the Union territory.' Referring to section 2(e) of the Citizenship Act, which defines, "District Register of India Citizen" means the register containing details of India citizens usually residing in the district.' Similarly, Local Registrar or Citizen Registration as defined in Section 2(h) of the Citizenship Act refers to the Local Officer or Revenue Officer appointed by the State Government, who has to prepare the register within the area and would function as Local Registrar. Also section 2(n) of the Citizenship Act, which provides, "State Register of Indian Citizen" means the register containing details of Indian Citizens usually residing in the State.' According to section 5 of the Citizenship Act, which defines, 'Officials of the Central Government, State Government and local bodies to assist the Registrar General - Every official of the Central Government, State Government, local bodies or their undertaking shall assist the Registrar General of Citizen Registration or any person authorized but him in this behalf, in preparation of the database relating to each family and every person, and in implementing the provisions of these rules. Learned counsel, Shri Raval therefore submitted that along with census work, when this data is collected also for specific register to the officials as provided in this section including the officers of the local bodies, their work can be entrusted to any officer of public corporation. 4. According to the constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sukhdev Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., reported in AIR 1975 SC 1331 to support his submission about the definition of the 'State' and its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He strenuously submitted that the petitioner - corporation would be the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is established by the Government of India and is subject to the control and, therefore, it would be an instrumentality or at-least a public sector corporation and, therefore, the impugned orders are just and valid. 5. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner herein would fall within the definition of "establishment" as defined under section 7(c) of Census Act 1948. It is further submitted that the original petitioner-respondent herein authority also falls within definition of "State" under article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further it is submitted that in similar set of circumstances, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has already held contrary to the decisions passed by this Hon'ble Court. 6. That the learned single judge perhaps has not considered the basic provisions of the Census Act, 1948, various submission and settled issues by the various Hon'ble High Courts. Further it is submitted that in similar set of circumstances, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has already held contrary to the decisions passed by this Hon'ble Court. 6. That the learned single judge perhaps has not considered the basic provisions of the Census Act, 1948, various submission and settled issues by the various Hon'ble High Courts. In this regard, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has upheld judgement in their order dated 21.9.2010 delivered in a similar situated CWP No. 7037 of 2010 (O&M) of Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s UOI &others. Therefore the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad probably has not assessed the verdict of both these judgments properly while delivering their own judgments on 14th October, 2013 in above mentioned Special Civil Application No. 5335 of 2010. 7. Further, it submitted that in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner/Additional Chief Census Officer, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur & Others judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in writ No. 28736 of 2010 dated 04.03.2010, wherein in para 15 & 16 it was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under: "15. That power, in our opinion, can be localised in Section 7 of the Act. The officers/employees of the writ petitioners would be covered by the expression 'establishment', as they are working in an establishment. Once, they are found working in an 'establishment', in our opinion, the only question is as to whether the power should be exercised by the District Magistrate or by any authority notified by the State Government under Section 4 (2) of the Act, depending on whether the expression is 'as' or 'or'. If the Act as downloaded from the website is taken into consideration, the expression used is 'or' and not 'as' and thus it is not only the District Magistrate, but other authorities can also be appointed by the State Government for any local area, which the State Government has done under Section 4 (2) of the Act. Respondent no. 1 is one such authority. The demand has been made by respondent no. 1 in respect of the officers/employees working in the Kanpur Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation. Therefore, it was well within the jurisdiction of respondent no. Respondent no. 1 is one such authority. The demand has been made by respondent no. 1 in respect of the officers/employees working in the Kanpur Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation. Therefore, it was well within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 1, considering that power has been conferred to call on the writ petitioners to make available the names of their officers/employees for the purpose of carrying on the census operations. 16. Alternatively, even if we assume that the expression is not 'or' and is 'as' then at the highest, the power can be exercised by the District Magistrate, who is the Principal Census Officer insofar as the whole district is concerned. Insofar as the Nagar Nigams are concerned, they are only a part of the district and thus the Municipal Commissioners have been notified as Additional Principal Census Officers. So, if in the event, respondent no. 1 has no jurisdiction, then the District Magistrate in respect of the district would have jurisdiction. As such, at the highest, it can be said that respondent no. 1 would not have been an authority to issue a direction to the writ petitioners, as such power is vested with the District Magistrate. However, considering that in various other writ petitions, interim orders were passed directing the petitioners, like the writ petitioners, to make available not more than 25% of their officers/employees and as the census operations are going on, no useful purpose would be served by quashing the orders dated 05.04.2010 and 17.04.2010 and the subsequent orders. In fact, in the order dated 05.04.2010, a reference has been made to the Notification dated January 18, 2010. Thus, in any view of the matter, no relief can be granted as sought for. However, at the same time, we may note that though respondents may call on the writ petitioners to make available the officers/employees for the purpose of census operations, in exercise of that power, the working of the writ petitioners themselves should not be affected as observed in the case of State Bank of India (supra). If there be power, it has to be exercised with circumspection and minimum staff can be requisitioned. If there be power, it has to be exercised with circumspection and minimum staff can be requisitioned. We, therefore, direct the respondents that if and when a notification is required to be issued under Section 7 of the Act, then from the Institutions like the writ petitioners, requisition should be, at any rate, not more than 25% of the available staff within the area of the jurisdiction conferred on the officers." 8. That the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate and consider the various Rules including Rule 3 enshrined in the Gazette of India Notification issued on 31.12.1990 and Section 4 read with 11(1)(a) of Census Act, 1948. While delivering the impugned judgment. This results that anybody/any employees/union/federation or any person etc. can take re-course or advantage of this judgment as a weapon in denying to perform Census, duties. This will adversely impact upon the smooth conduct of future Census which is due in the 2020-2021 and will also create an obstacle in collecting data on Census matters which is of National importance in character. 9. That, as per Rule 3 of Census Rules, 1990 which inter-alia relates to appointment of Census Officers that the State Government and the Union Territory Administrations, in order to aid the taking of the census within their States or Union territories, may appoint officers from against the category mentioned in column 2 as census officer within their jurisdiction with such designation mentioned in column 1 of the Table below:- Designation Officers to be appointed Principal Census Officer District Collectors/Magistrate/Commissioner of Administrative Head of Corporation or any nominated officer. District/Additional District/Deputy District/Sub-Divisional City Census Officer. District Collector/Magistrate/Officer Assisting District Collector/Magistrate/Commissioner/District Sub-Divisional Officer or Revenue Divisional Officers. Charge Officer/Assistant Charge Officer/Additional Charge Officer and Sub-Charge Officer Tahsildars/Additional Tahsildar/Mamlatdar/Block Development Officers/Chief Administrative Officers of Town/Executive Officers and Officers. Supervisor Officers generally of a rank higher than Enumerator or any persosn Enumerator Teachers, Clerks or any official or any person. 11. Further it is submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in considering Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948 which reads as under: Section 4 - Appointment of census staff.- (1) The Central Government may appoint a Census Commissioner to supervise the taking of the census throughout the area in which the census is intended to be taken, and Directors of Census Operations] to supervise the taking of the census within the several States. (2) The State Government may appoint persons as census-officers with such designations as that Government may deem necessary] to take, or aid in, or supervise the taking of, the census within any specified local area and such persons, when so appointed, shall be bound to serve accordingly. (3) A declaration in writing, signed by any authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf, that any person has been duly appointed a census-officer for any local area shall be conclusive proof of such appointment. (4) The State Government may delegate to such authority as it thinks fit the power of appointing census-officers conferred by sub-section (2). 12. That the learned single bench has failed to appreciate that the requisition of staff has to be made by the respondents under the various provisions of Census Act, 1948 as amended from time to time and that is only source of power by which the staff can be requisitioned by the respondent - authority for the purpose of census operation otherwise it would be an utter failure on part of Union of India to conduct future Census exercise due during 2020-2021. Moreover, non-willing workers, staff, employees persons, teachers etc. will take recourse of judgment of this Hon'ble High Court as a sole weapon for their protection against duties in future Census and this would lead to failure of smooth and timely completion of this important National task. 13. That the learned judge erred by not appreciating the fact that section 7 of the said Act provides the power to call upon persons to give assistance and section 7 (c) makes it clear that all officers and members of staff of any factory, firm or establishment includes the establishment of the appellants also. 14. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate the fact that the whole purpose of the act is to ensure collection of proper data so the Union of India can allocate resources for the betterment and equal development of the entire nation. Hence, the provisions of the act are required to be interpreted in consonance with the actual scope and object of the Act." 8. In such circumstances as referred to in the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants, it is submitted by Mr. Hence, the provisions of the act are required to be interpreted in consonance with the actual scope and object of the Act." 8. In such circumstances as referred to in the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants, it is submitted by Mr. Shah that there being merit in this Appeal, the same be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed. 9. On the other hand, this Appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Clerk, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation. Mr. Naik, the learned senior counsel has placed his written submissions as under: "Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948 provides for the appointment of Census Staff. It empowers the Central Government to appoint a Census Commissioner and the State Governments to appoint persons as Census Officers. Section 4(4) empowers the State Government to delegate the power to appoint Census Officers on some other authority. 2. Section 4 A of the Act provide that every local authority shall make available its staff for performance of any duties in connection with the taking of census. It is submitted that LIC is not a local authority and therefore its employees cannot be appointed for the work of Census. [AIR-1996-SC-434 - Housing Board of Haryana Vs Haryana Housing Board Employees Union & Ors.; AIR-1996-SC-1316 -Calcutta State Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal] 3. It is submitted that under the Census Act, 1948 the authorities have no power or jurisdiction to appoint the employees of LIC for census work. [1995-(Supp) 2-SCC-13 -Election Commission of India Vs State Bank of India Staff Association Local Head Office Unit, Patna & Ors.; AIR-1977-SC-2328 - Union of India Vs Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (Para 11, 15 & 84), 2007-7-SCC-686 - Union of India Vs Bharat Battery Mfg. Co.(P) Ltd.] 4. It is submitted that the rules framed or notification issued under the Act cannot go beyond the statute. When Census Act does not provide for any such power or jurisdiction to make appointment of employees of LIC it is not a local authority, such appointments cannot be made by notification. [1997-5-SCC-516 - Agricultural Market Committee Vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.] 5. When Census Act does not provide for any such power or jurisdiction to make appointment of employees of LIC it is not a local authority, such appointments cannot be made by notification. [1997-5-SCC-516 - Agricultural Market Committee Vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.] 5. It is submitted that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken a view in the case of LIC that under the Census Act the employees of LIC cannot be appointed for census work. [Civil Writ Petition No. 7037 of 2010 - Punjab & Haryana High Court decided on 21.09.2010.] 6. It is submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28736 of 2010 decided on 04-03-2011 cannot be cited as precedent as it is based on the interim orders passed in other writ petition and on consensus. 7. It is submitted that Section 7 (c) of the Act only empowers the District Magistrate to seek assistance of any officers of members of staff of any factory, firm or establishment. When such assistance is required, at the time of taking of census in such factory, firm or establishment. This provision does not empower the authority to appoint the employees of LIC to perform the census work itself. 8. It is submitted that once the Act has delegated the powers under Section 4 of the Act to appoint Census Officers upon the Central Government and State Governments, such officers cannot further delegate the authority upon other persons. It is submitted that the Dy. Municipal Commissioner who is himself delegated the power under the Act cannot further delegate the power. Therefore impugned notification suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of power. 9. It is submitted that the Census Act does not provide for any power or jurisdiction or authority for appointment or requisition of any employee of the LIC as census officers, enumerator or supervisor and therefore the State of Gujarat or any officers like Dy. Municipal Commissioner cannot make such appointment or requisition the employees of LIC. [1995-(Supp) 2-SCC-13] 10. 9. It is submitted that the Census Act does not provide for any power or jurisdiction or authority for appointment or requisition of any employee of the LIC as census officers, enumerator or supervisor and therefore the State of Gujarat or any officers like Dy. Municipal Commissioner cannot make such appointment or requisition the employees of LIC. [1995-(Supp) 2-SCC-13] 10. The Learned Single Judge had also noted that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1995-(Supp)2-SCC-13 the Representation of People Act was amended and even after the amendment the Hon'ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court has taken a view in the case of Writ Petition No. 8039 of 2009, WP No. 8052 of 2009 and WP No. 8119 of 2009 that only the such staff could be requisitioned which is under the control of President or the Governor and no other staff can be requisitioned over which they do not exercise control. 11. It is submitted that the Learned Single Judge has dealt with all the contentions raised by the appellant-respondent relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble High Courts and does not warrant any interference in the present appeal." 10. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Naik submits that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ-application, warranting any interference in this Appeal. Mr. Naik would submit that there being no merit in this Appeal, the same be dismissed. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, whether the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited can be deployed for the work of census under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948? 12. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we must look into few relevant provisions of the Act, 1948. "4. Appointment of census staff - (1) The Central Government may appoint a Census Commissioner to supervise the taking of the census throughout the area in which the census is intended to be taken and Directors of Census Operations to supervise the taking of the census within the several States. "4. Appointment of census staff - (1) The Central Government may appoint a Census Commissioner to supervise the taking of the census throughout the area in which the census is intended to be taken and Directors of Census Operations to supervise the taking of the census within the several States. (2) The State Government may appoint persons as census-officers with such designations as that Government may deem necessary to take, or aid in or supervise the taking of, the census within any specified local area and such persons, when so appointed, shall be bound to serve accordingly. (3) A declaration in writing, signed by any authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf, that any person has been duly appointed a census-officer for any local area shall be conclusive proof of such appointment. (4) The State Government may delegate 3 to such authority as it thinks fit the power of appointing census-officers conferred by sub-section (2). 4A. Staff of every local authority to be made available for taking census - Every local authority in a State shall, when so directed by a written order by the Central Government or by an authority appointed by that Government in this behalf, make available to any Director of Census Operations such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with the taking of census. 7. Power to call upon certain persons to give assistance - The District Magistrate, as such authority as the State Government may appoint in this behalf for any local area, may, by written order which shall have effect throughout the extent of his district or of such local area, as the case may be, call upon- (a) all owners and occupiers of land, tenure-holders, and farmers and assignees of land revenue, or their agents. (b) all members of the district, municipal, panchayat and other local authorities and officers and servants of such authorities, and (c) all officers and members of staff of any factory, firm or establishment, to give such assistance as shall be specified in the order towards the taking of a census of the persons who are, at the time of the taking of the census, on the lands of such owners, occupiers, tenure-holders, farmers and assignees, or in the premises of factories, firms and other establishments, or within the areas for which such local authorities are established, as the case may be, and the persons to whom an order under this section is directed shall be bound to obey it and shall, while acting in pursuance of such order, be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code." 13. Section 7(c) of the Census Act empowers the District Magistrate to call upon all the officers and members of the staff of any factory, firm or establishment to render assistance towards taking of a census of the persons, who are, at the time of taking of the census, in the premises of factories, firms and other establishments, as the case may be. It is, therefore, evident that under Section 7(c) the District Magistrate can take assistance of the officers and members of staff of any establishment towards taking the census of persons, who are, at the time of taking of census, in the premises of the establishment only. 14. Section 7(c) does not empower the District Magistrate to appoint the employees of the LIC as the Enumerators or Supervisors for the general census work. 15. The meaning of the term "establishment" as sought to be assigned does not carry the case of the appellants any further and the interpretation of the term "establishment" by judgments referred to in para 2 of the written submissions is not helpful in any manner to the appellants. 16. Under the Census Act, the work of taking census is assigned to the Central Government and the State Governments under Section 4. They can take help of the staff of local authorities under Section 4A. 16. Under the Census Act, the work of taking census is assigned to the Central Government and the State Governments under Section 4. They can take help of the staff of local authorities under Section 4A. Other than that, the Census Officers cannot appoint the employees of the LIC as the Enumerators or Supervisors to perform the work of taking census as under the Census Act the Census Officers like, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, cannot further delegate the power to take census and there is no power, jurisdiction or authority under the Act to appoint the employees of the LIC as the Enumerators or Supervisors. The Citizenship Act has nothing to do with the Census Act though the powers may be delegated under both the Acts to the same officer. 17. The Supreme Court, in the case of the Election Commission of India v. State Bank of India Staff Association, Local Head Office Unit, Patna, 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 13, in Para 26 specifically dealt with the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331 and negatived such contention as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. 18. We may refer to and rely upon a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the Civil Writ Petition No. 7037 of 2010, Surya Kant, J. (As His Lordship then was), decided the very same question, which we are called upon to answer in this Appeal. We may quote the observations made in the judgment thus: "The petitioner - Life Insurance Corporation of India seeks quashing of the communication-cum-orders dated 06.04.2010, 09.04.2010 and 12.04.2010 [Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-8] whereby the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India at Jalandhar has been directed to make available services of at least 150 employees to work as Enumerators/Supervisors for performing the work of Census in the State and the said Senior Divisional Manager has been deputed as 'Charge Officer' for the said purpose. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner's employees can be deployed for the Census work under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948? The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner's employees can be deployed for the Census work under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948? For the purposes of resolving the controversy, Sections 4, 4-A and 7 have been referred to which read as follows:- "Section 4[1] The Central Government may appoint a Census Commissioner to supervise the taking of the census throughout the area in which the census is intended to be taken and [Directors of Census Operations] to supervise the taking of the census within the several States. [2] The State Government may appoint persons as census-officers with such designations as that Government may deem necessary to take, or aid in, or supervise the taking of, the census within any specified local area and such persons when so appointed, shall be bound to serve accordingly. [3] A declaration in writing, signed by any authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf, that any person has been duly appointed a census-officer for any local area shall be conclusive proof of such appointment. [4] The State Government may delegate to such authority as it thinks fit the power of appointing census-officers conferred by sub-section [2]. [4A] Even local authority in a State shall, when so directed by a written order by the Central Government or by an authority appointed by that Government in this behalf, make available to any Director of Census Operations such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with the taking of census. 7. [4A] Even local authority in a State shall, when so directed by a written order by the Central Government or by an authority appointed by that Government in this behalf, make available to any Director of Census Operations such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with the taking of census. 7. The District Magistrate, or such authority as the State Government may appoint in this behalf for any local area, may, by written order which shall have effect throughout the extent of his district or of such local area, as the case may be, call upon- [a] all owners and occupiers of land, tenure-holders, and farmers and assignees of land revenue, or their agents, [b] all members of the district, municipal, panchayat and other local authorities and officers and servants of such authorities, and [c] all officers and members of staff of any factory, firm or establishment, to give such assistance as shall be specified in the order towards the taking of a census of the persons who are, at the time of the taking of the census, on the lands of such owners, occupiers, tenure-holders, farmers and assignees, or in the premises of factories, firms and other establishments, or within the areas for which such local authorities are established, as the case may be, and the persons to whom an order under this section is directed shall be bound to obey it and shall, while acting in pursuance of such order, be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code". There can indeed be no doubt that the Life Insurance Corporation is not a 'Local Authority' as it does not fulfill the ingredients of sub-Section [31] of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act. Similarly, the impugned communications do not fall within the ambit of Section 4[2] of the Census Act as the services of 150 employees of the LIC have been sought to work as Enumerators/Supervisors and not as 'Census Officers'. Similarly, the impugned communications do not fall within the ambit of Section 4[2] of the Census Act as the services of 150 employees of the LIC have been sought to work as Enumerators/Supervisors and not as 'Census Officers'. Likewise, Section 7[c] of the Act also can not be pressed into aid by the respondents as it merely enables the District Magistrate to seek assistance from the officers/members of the staff of an establishment for the purposes of 'taking of census of the officers who are, at the time of taking of census, are in the premises of the establishment and/or are within the areas for which the said local authorities are established........ ". The impugned communications no where mention that the services of the employees of the LIC have been called upon for the purposes of carrying out the census work of the persons employed on the establishment of the LIC only. For the reasons afore-stated and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Election Commissioner of India v State Bank of India, Patna & Ors., 1995 [Suppl. 2] SCC 13, I am of the considered view that the impugned communications are beyond the scope and powers conferred by the Census Act, 1948. The same are accordingly quashed." 19. Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, placed strong reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) referred to above. We take notice of the fact that the Division Bench took the view that having regard to the General Clauses Act as well as the provisions of the Act, 1948, as also the provisions of the Rules, the Life Insurance Corporation of India would not be a local authority within the meaning of the General Clauses Act, and in the absence of the local authority being defined under the Act, 1948, the definition of the General Clauses Act should be taken into consideration. The Division Bench further proceeded to hold that if the Life Insurance Corporation of India is not a local authority, then in respect of the services of such employees, as contemplated under Section 4A of the Act, 1948, no order can be made by the Central Government. The Division Bench further proceeded to hold that if the Life Insurance Corporation of India is not a local authority, then in respect of the services of such employees, as contemplated under Section 4A of the Act, 1948, no order can be made by the Central Government. In the case before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, there was no order by the Central Government. In such circumstances, Their Lordships took the view that Section 4A of the Act is not the source of power of such type of cases. However, Their Lordships proceeded to took the view that the power can be localised in Section 7 of the Act. Their Lordships took the view that the officers/employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India would be covered by the expression 'establishment', as they work in an establishment. Once they are found working in an 'establishment', the only question thereafter would be, whether the power should be exercised by the District Magistrate or by any authority notified by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Act, depending on whether the expression is 'as' or 'or'. We may quote the relevant observations made by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court as under: "14. The question for our consideration is as to whether Respondent no. 1 could have made a demand on the writ Petitioners and directed them to make available their officers/employees for the purpose of conducting of the census operations. We firstly, proceed on the basis that the writ Petitioner no. 1 is not a local authority. If the Petitioner no. 1 is not a local authority, then in respect of the services of such employees, as contemplated under Section 4A of the Act, no order could be made by the Central Government. In the instant case, there is no order by the Central Government. Therefore, Section 4A of the Act is not the source of power in such cases. Respondent no. 1, pursuant to being appointed in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act is thus empowered to discharge duties. This provision however, does not confer power on the Respondents to call on the officers/employees of Petitioner no. 1. 15. That power, in our opinion, can be localised in Section 7 of the Act. The officers/employees of the writ Petitioners would be covered by the expression 'establishment', as they are working in an establishment. This provision however, does not confer power on the Respondents to call on the officers/employees of Petitioner no. 1. 15. That power, in our opinion, can be localised in Section 7 of the Act. The officers/employees of the writ Petitioners would be covered by the expression 'establishment', as they are working in an establishment. Once, they are found working in an 'establishment', in our opinion, the only question is as to whether the power should be exercised by the District Magistrate or by any authority notified by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Act, depending on whether the expression is 'as' or 'or'. If the Act as downloaded from the website is taken into consideration, the expression used is 'or' and not 'as' and thus it is not only the District Magistrate, but other authorities can also be appointed by the State Government for any local area, which the State Government has done under Section 4(2) of the Act. Respondent no. 1 is one such authority. The demand has been made by Respondent no. 1 in respect of the officers/employees working in the Kanpur Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation. Therefore, it was well within the jurisdiction of Respondent no. 1, considering that power has been conferred to call on the writ Petitioners to make available the names of their officers/employees for the purpose of carrying on the census operations." 20. With profound respect, we find it difficult to subscribe to the views expressed by Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court. 21. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court is quite reasonable and meaningful. The conjoint reading of Sections 4 and 7 of the Act would make it clear that Section 4 of the Act refers to the power of appointment of the Census Officer, Enumerators, etc. for the purpose of census work either by or through the Director of Census appointed by the Central Government or by the State Government which, in turn, can appoint his own staff for the purpose of such census work. The learned Single Judge has rightly noted the point of distinction in this regard. Section 7 of the Act does not empower or confer the power, jurisdiction or authority to make any such requisition. The learned Single Judge has rightly noted the point of distinction in this regard. Section 7 of the Act does not empower or confer the power, jurisdiction or authority to make any such requisition. All that Section 7 provides for is the power to seek the assistance and to call the persons for the assistance. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Section 7 refers to any power of the State Government or Central Government to make an appointment/requisition of the Census Officer from any corporation or establishment. 22. It is a settled principle of law that the rules and/or notifications cannot travel beyond the statute. When the Census Act itself does not confer any power, jurisdiction or authority to appoint the employees of the Corporation as Enumerators or Supervisors, then the appellants, on their own, cannot assume such jurisdiction or power. Section 4 of the Census Act does not empower the Central Government or the State Government to appoint the employees of the Corporation as the Enumerators or Supervisors. 23. The Supreme Court, in the case of the Election Commission of India (supra) has taken the view that the staff of the State Bank of India cannot be requisitioned for the census work. The Supreme Court considered the scope of the power and jurisdiction of the authority under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 24. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced with the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ-application filed by the Corporation. No error, much less an error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order. 25. In such circumstances referred to above, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.