65. On behalf of State of U.P., Mr Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate-General further submitted that Entry 52 of List I is an exceptional entry. It not only prescribes the field of legislation but also enables and empowers the Parliament to make laws to the exclusion of the State. According to him, being exclusionary in nature unlike entries merely delineating fields of legislation, Entry 52 has to be strictly and, therefore, narrowly construed. The other question that has to be judged, according to him, is that whenever the Constitution intended the Parliament to assume legislative competence in respect of the entire field, a declaration of an unqualified nature is provided for, unlike a qualified provision like Entry 52 of List I. The words ‘control’ and ‘regulation’ are at times, held to be interchangeable or used synonymously, their use in the various entries either singly or jointly, indicates that they are sought to convey a different sense. The word ‘control’ has in the context, a narrower meaning, excluding details of regulatory nature by the State. According to him, comparing entries 7, 23, 24, 27, 62, 64 and 67 of List I with Entry 52, would demonstrate that under Entry 52 it is not the entire field which is sought to be covered but only the control of industries; and that the absence of inclusion of qualifying words like ‘the control of which’ cannot be brushed aside. By referring to the several decisions, he contended that in view of the declarations made in Section 2 of the IDR Act and the provisions made therein the entire field was not occupied and the vend fee or other impost by the State legislatures were not infringing in the field treaded by the central legislature.
