vil Appeal Nos6230 and 6231 of 1983
321 From the Judgment and Order dated 2061983 of the Orissa High Court in OJC Nos 237 and 46 of 1983
FS Nariman AK Ganguli SN Kacker RF Nariman A Patnaik and MM Kshatriya for the Appellants
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General and RK Mehta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
On December 12 1967 the State of Orissa granted a license for collection of Sal Seeds  from eleven Forest Divisions to Ms Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited
The agreement provided for the sale and purchase of Sal Seeds failing on the ground naturally in the forests
There was a stipulation that the company should establish solvent extraction units in the backward areas of Mayurbhanj and Sambalpur
There was also an option for renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years
It was later agreed that the period from October 1 1967 to September 30 1969 should be treated as experimental period and the lease should be deemed to have commenced from Octo ber 1 1969 and to last for a period of ten years
The Orissa Oil Industries Limited a public limited company was floated by the Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and it was agreed that the State Government should also contribute to the share capital of the company
It was agreed that the Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limit ed should supply Sal Seeds to the two solvent extraction plants of the Orissa Oil Industries Limited one set up at Bairangpur in Mayurbhanj District with a capacity to crush 21000 MT Sal Seeds and the other at Sasan in Sambalpur District with a capacity to crush 21000 MT sal seeds
Thereafter on May 25 1979 agreements renewing the leases for the purchase and removal of sal seeds from the eleven Forest Divisions for a further period of ten years from October 1 1979 to September 30 1989 were entered into by the Utkal Contractors and Joincry Private Limited and the Government of Orissa
This was followed up by an agreement between the Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and the Orissa Oil Industries Limited for the supply of the entire collection of sal seeds from the eleven Forest Divi sions by the Utkal Contractors to the Orissa Oil Industries
While so the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Bill 1981 was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Orissa State
The Statement of Objects and Reasons was as follows 322 Smuggling of various forest pro duces is increasing day by day
The present provisions of the Orissa Forest Act 1972 for checking hoarding and transport of forest produce are not adequate to bring the culprits to book
The said Act is not adequate for imposition of any restrictions of control on trade in forest produce by framing rules thereunder
Barring few items like sal seeds
most of the important items of minor forest produce such as Mahua flower Tamarind Charmaji Karanja and the like are grown in private holdings as well as in the forest areas owned by Government
Unscrupulous trad ers take advantage of this situation and evade the law under the cover that the produce relates to private land and not to forests under the control of Government
Instances of smuggling in such cases are too many and the smugglers are escaping with impunity because of absence of any legislation providing for State monopoly in forest produce
Enactment of a separate legislation for the purpose is therefore absolutely necessary
The Bill seeks to achieve the above purpose
 It appears from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the object of the proposed Act was to prevent smuggling of forest produce like Mahua flowers Tamarind Charmaji Karanja etcwhich were grown both in private holdings and Government forests
The object of the legislation was to prevent smuggling in such forest produce and to provide for State monopoly therein
It is seen that the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly mentions sal seeds as a forest produce which is grown in Government Forests and not in private holdings
The Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 received the assent of the President of India on August 21 1981
Under section 13 of the Act the State Government is empowered from time to time to issue a notification specify ing the area or areas the forest produce in relation to which and the date with effect from which the Act shall come into force
Purporting to act under this provision a notification was issued by the Government of Orissa on December 9 1982 directing that the Act shall come into force at once in the whole of the State of Orissa in relation to sal seeds
We are told that this is the only notification issued so far under section 13 of the Act despite the fact that in the very Statement of Objects and Reasons it was expressly 323 recited that sal seeds was not a forest produce grown in Government forests
In fact we find that even after the commencement of the Act and before the issue of the Notifi cation there were negotiations between the Utkal Contrac tors and Joinery Private Limited and the State Government for long term agreements for purchase _and sale of sal seeds in Athagarh and Puri Forest Divisions
Such agreements were in fact entered into in relation to Parlakhemundi Forest Division between the State of Orissa and Indo East Extraction Limited
On December 24 1982 the Government refused to accept royalty from Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited in respect of Dhenkanal and Sambalpur Forest Divi sion on the ground that the Notification dated December 9 1982 had the effect of rescinding the contract between the company and the Government
Thereupon Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and Orissa Oil Industries Limited filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court for a decla ration that the Notification dated December 9 1982 did not have the effect of rescinding the contracts which they had with the State Government
The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Orissa High Court
The Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and Orissa Oil Industries Limited have filed Civil Appeal No 6230 of 1983
In another case on similar facts the Orissa Minor Oil Private Limited have filed Civil Appeal No 6231 of 1983
On behalf of the appellants it was submitted by Shri FS Nafiman in Civil Appeal No 6230 of 1983 and Shri SN Kacker in Civil Appeal No 6231 of 1983 that the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 had no applica tion to forest produce grown in Government forests
The Act was aimed at creating a monopoly in forest produce in the Government
Since the Government was already the owner of forest produce in Government forests all that was necessary to create a monopoly in all forest produce in the Government was to vest in the Government the exclusive right to pur chase forest produce grown in private holdings
That was precisely what was done by the Orissa Forest Produce Con trol of Trade Act 1981 according to the learned counsel
It was further argued that even otherwise Explanation II to section 51 saved such contracts for the purchase of specified forest produce from Government forests also
It was also brought to our notice that such contracts were entered into in pursuance of the avowed Industrial Policy of the Govern ment of Orissa
Shri G Ramaswamy learned Additional Solic itor General argued that Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 was a comprehensive Act intended to control and regulate trade in forest produce whether grown in Gov ernment forest or land held by private owners
He urged 324 that the language of section 51a was so wide as to be incapa ble of any construction other than to say that all contracts relating to trade in forest produce shall stand rescinded irrespective of whether the contract related to forest produce grown in Government forests or forest produce grown on private lands
He urged that Explanation II properly viewed was an explanation to section 51b only and not to section 51a He argued that in any event the contract was for the collection and not for the purchase of forest produce and therefore not saved by the explanation
He further urged that the agents contemplated by section 4 of the Act were not agents to act on behalf of the Government
They were public agents named as such to carry on the activity of purchas ing and trading in specified forest produce
They could purchase from and sell to the Government
We may straight away say that it was never the case of the Government in the High Court that the character of the agents was as suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General
We do not therefore propose to consider the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General whatever justification there may be for the submission on the language of section 4
The learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that even if the agreement which Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited had with the Government was saved by Expla nation II the further agreement by which the Utkal Contrac tors and Joinery Private Limited was required to supply sal seeds to Orissa Oil Industries Limited and the latter was required to purchase from the former was not saved by Expla nation II and therefore no relief could be granted to the appellants
This submission again is a new point raised for the first time in this Court
We do not think we will be justified in permitting the Additional Solicitor General to raise the question at this stage
Such a question was not raised in the High Court probably because the contract between Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and Orissa Oil Industries Limited appears to have been entered into at the behest of the Government
The questions for consideration therefore are whether purchase of sal seeds grown in Government forests is outside the purview of the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 and whether in any event a contract such as the one with which we are concerned is saved by Explanation II to section 51
We have already referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act
We have noticed that  the object was to prevent smuggling of those varieties of forest produce as were grown both in Government forests and private lands
We also notice that it was expressly mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that such varieties of forest 325 produce were unlike sal seeds which were grown only in Government forests
Even so we notice that the only notifi cation ever issued under the Act was in respect of sal seeds and no other forest produce
We can only comment that curi ous indeed are the ways of the powers that be
Section 13 of the Act declares that the Act shall come into force in such area or areas and in relation to such forest produce and on such date or dates as the State Gov ernment may from time to time by notification specify in that behalf
Section 2c defines forest produce  and enumerates various items of forest produce
One of them is sal seeds
Section 2d defines growers of forest produce to mean i in respect of forest produce grown on land owned by any person the owner of such land and ii in all other cases the State Government Section 2h and 2i define specified area  and specified forest produce  in the following terms h specified area in relation to a specified forest produce means the area speci fied in the notification under sub section 3 of section 1 for such specified forest produce  i specified forest produce in relation to a specified area means the forest produce specified in the notification issued under sub section 3 of section 1 for such specified area
 Section 4 authorises the Government to appoint one or more agents for the purchase of and trade in specified forest produce in respect of one or more subdivisions of a speci fied area
It is also provided that any person including a Gram Panchayat a Cooperative Society or the State Tribal Development Corporation may be appointed as an agent
Sec tion 5 is important and we are particularly concerned with subsections 1 and 3 of section 5 which may be fully extracted here
They are as follows 5Restriction on purchase and transport and rescission of subsisting contracts 1 On the issue of a notification under sub section 3 of section 1 in respect of any area a all contracts for the purchase sale gathering or collection of specified forest produce grown or found in the said area shah stand rescinded and 326 b no person other than i the State Government ii an officer of the State Government autho rised in writing in that behalf or iii an agent in respect of the unit in which the specified forest produce is grown or found shall purchase or transport any specified forest produce in the said area
Explanation 1 purchase shall include pur chase by barter
Explanation II Purchase of specified forest produce from the State Government or the aforesaid Government Officer or agent or a licensed vendor shall not be deemed to be a purchase in contravention of the provisions of this Act
Explanation III A person having no interest in the holding who has acquired the right to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on such holding shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of the provisions of this Act
2        3 Any person desiring to sell any specified forest produce may sell them to the aforesaid Government Officer or agent at any depot situated within the unit wherein such produce was grown or found Provided that State Government the Government Officer or the agent shall not be bound to repurchase specified forest produce once sold
4       We notice that though section 51a is in general terms and declares that 327 all contracts for the purchase and sale of forest produce shall stand rescinded and clause b bans purchase and transport of forest produce by any person other than the State Government or its officers or agents
Explanation II is clear that purchase of specified forest produce from the State Government or its officers or agents is not to be deemed to be a purchase in contravention of the provisions of the Act
Explanation III we see declares that a person having no interest in the holding but acquires the right to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on such holding shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of the provisions of the Act
It is obvious that the reference to holding here is to land held by a person other than the Government and not to land owned by the Government
We are primarily concerned in this case with the effect of section 51a and b in the light of Explanation II
Sub section 3 of section 5 also we further notice refers to sale to the officers or agents of the Government by individuals and not sale by the Government or its offi cers or agents to individuals
Section 52 which we have not extracted is an excep tion to the ban imposed by section 51b on transport of speci fied forest produce
Section 52b provides that notwith standing anything contained in sub section1 any person may transport any specified forest produce within the prescribed limits from the place of purchase of any such produce to the place where such produce is required for bona fide use or for consumption
It is further provided that any specified forest produce purchased from the State Government or any Officer or agent or any person for manufacture of goods within the State in which such specified forest produce is used as raw material or by any person for sale outside the State may be transported in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the prescribed authority
Section 6 provides for the constitution of an Advisory Committee in respect of each specified forest produce for each Revenue Division
The object of the Committee is to advise the Government in the matter of fixation of fair and reasonable price of each specified forest produce at which such produce may be purchased by the State Government or its authorised officers or agents when they are offered for sale in such division in accordance with the provisions of this Act
 Section 7 enables the State Government after consul tation with the Advisory Committee to fix the price at which specified forest produce may be purchased by it or by its officers or agents
Again we see that the price to be fixed is in regard to authorised produce that may be purchased by the State Government and not forest produce that may be sold by the 328 State Government
Section 8 enables the State Government to open depots for the convenience of the growers of specified forest produce and section 9 obliges the State Government to purchase at the price fixed under section 7 any specified forest produce offered for sale at the depot
Section 10 enables growers of forest produce to get themselves registered
Section 11 enables every manufacturer who uses any specified forest produce as a raw material and every trader or consum er to get himself registered
Section 12 enables the State Government to dispose of specified forest produce purchased by the State Government or its officers or agents by sale or otherwise as the State Government may direct
Section 13 bans any person from engaging himself in retail sale of any specified forest produce except under a licence granted under this section
Section 15 provides for searches and seizures
Section 16 provides for penalties
Section 221 rovides Nothing contained in the Orissa Forest Act 14 of 1972 shall apply to specified forest produce in respect of matters for which provisions are made under this Act
 In considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel and in defining and construing the area and the content of the Act and its provisions it is necessary to make certain general observations regarding the interpreta tion of statutes
A statute is best understood if we know the reason for it
The reason for a statute is the safest guide to its interpretation
The words of a statute take their colour from the reason for it
How do we discover the reason for a statute There are external and internal aids
The external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill is presented to Parliament the reports of Commit tees which preceded the Bill and the reports of Parliamen tary Committees
Occasional excursions into the debates of Parliament are permitted
Internal aids are the preamble the scheme and the provisions of the Act
Having discovered the reason for the statute and so having set the sail to the wind the interpreter may proceed ahead
No provision in the statute and no word of the statute may be construed in isolation
Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed
The setting and the pattern are important
It is again important to remember that Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily
Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions Parliament is also not expected to express itself unnecessarily
Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning something Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for
Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation nor can it be assumed to make pointless legis lation
Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely 329 to state what it is unnecessary to state or to do what is already validly done
Parliament may not be assumed to legislate unnecessarily
Again while the words of an enact ment are important the context is no less important
For instance the fact that general words are used in a statute is not in itself a conclusive reason why every case falling literally within them should be governed by that statute and the context of an Act may well indicate that wide or general words should be given a restrictive meaning see Halsbury 4th edn 44 para 874
In Attorney General vsHRH Prince Augustus  Viscount Simonds said My Lords the contention of the Attorney General was in the first place met by the bald general proposition that where the enacting part of a statute is clear and unambiguous it cannot be cut down by the preamble and a large part of the time which the hearing of this case occupied was spent in discussing authorities which were said to support that proposition
I wish at the outset to express my dissent from it if it means that I cannot obtain assistance from the preamble in ascertaining the meaning of the relevant enacting part
For words and partic ularly general words cannot be read in isola tion their colour and content are derived from their context
So it is that I conceive it to be my right and duty to examine every word of a statute in its context and I use context in its widest sense which I have already indicated as including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute but its preamble the existing state of the law other statutes in pari materia and the mis chief which I can by those and other legiti mate means discern that the statute was intended to remedy
In Chertsey UDCvMixnam s Properties  Lord Reid said that the general effect of the au thorities was properly stated in Maxwell s Interpretation of Statutes as follows General words and phrases therefore however wide and comprehensive they may be in their literal sense must usually be construed as being limited to the actual objects of the Act
 Though no reference was made to Maxwell this Court in Em press Mills vs Municipal Committee Wardha  stated the same proposition 330 It is also a recognised principle of construction that general words and phrases however wide and comprehensive they may be in their literal sense must usually be con strued as being limited to the actual objects of the Act
In Maunsell vs Olins  Lord Wilber force observed   I am not myself able to solve the problem by a simple resort to plain meaning
Most language and partic ularly all languages used in rent legislation is opaque all general words are open to inspection many general words demand inspection to see whether they really bear their widest possible meaning
 But we think that when we rely upon rules of construc tion we must always bear in mind  Lord Reid s admonition in Maunsell vs Olins supra to the following effect Then rules of construction are relied on
They are not rules in the ordinary sense of having some binding force
They are our serv ants not our masters
They are aids to con structions presumptions or pointers
Not infrequently one rule  points in one direc tion another in a different direction
In each case we must look at all relevant circum stances and decide as a matter of judgment what weight to attach to any particular rule 
 Bearing these broad rules in mind we may now examine the Act and the argument
The reason for the Act is not far to seek
Earlier we have set out the Statement of Objects and Reasons
The Statement of Objects and Reasons is explic it that the Act was proposed to be enacted to prevent smug gling of forest produce grown in Government lands under the guise of produce grown on private lands
This was sought to be achieved as stated in the preamble by the creation of a State monopoly
Since the State was already the owner of the forest produce grown in Government land what was necessary and sufficient to be done by the proposed legislation was to vest in the Government the exclusive right to purchase forest produce grown on private land
We may now proceed to examine the scheme and the provisions of the Act to find out whether this was not precisely what was done
At the outset we notice that grower of forest produce  is 331 defined to include the State Government but on an examina tion of the remaining provisions of the Act we find that the expression grower of forest produce  is not found in any other provision except sec52a and section 10
Section 52a provides for the transport of produce by the grower of forest produce from a place within one unit to another place within the unit
Section 10 requires every grower of specified forest produce to get himself registered in the prescribed manner
Obviously neither section 52a nor section 10 has any application to the Government
Therefore the cir cumstance that grower of forest produce is defined so as to include the Government appears to us to be of no consequence in determining whether the Act is applicable to forest produce grown on Government lands
On the other hand from the extracts and summary of the other provisions of the Act that we have given earlier we find that section after section deals with purchase of forest produce which in the circumstances can only refer to purchase of forest produce grown on private holdings since there can be no question of or providing for the purchase by the Government of forest produce grown on Government lands
Section 4 enables the appointment by the State Government of agents for the pur chase of and trade is specified forest produce
Section 51b refers to purchase or transport of specified forest produce by the State Government its officers and agents
Section 53 refers to sale of forest produce to the Govern ment its officers or agents
Section 7 refers to the fixa tion of price at which the Government its officers or agents may purchase forest produce
Section 8 enables the opening of depots for the purchase of forest produce by the Government its officers and agents
Section 9 deals with the obligation of the State Government its agents and officers to purchase specified forest produce
All these provisions we see deal with purchase of forest produce by the State Government
As stated by us earlier this can only be of forest produce grown in private holdings and not in Government forests
The only provision which deals with sale of forest produce by the State Government is section 12 and that again is confined to the sale of specified forest produce purchased by the State Government its officers or agents
Thus section 4 section 51b section 53 section 7 section 8 section 9 section 10 and section 12 all deal with the forest produce grown in private holdings and all these provisions except sections 10 and 12 deal with purchase of forest produce by the Govern ment its officers or agents
Section 10 as we have already seen deals with registration of growers of forest produce and section 12 with sale of forest produce purchased by the Government
Thus none of these provisions deals with forest produce grown in Government lands nor is there any other provision in the Act which expressly deals with forest produce grown in Government lands
The scheme of 332 the Act is therefore fully in tune with the object set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and in the Preamble namely that of creating a monopoly in forest produce by making the Government the exclusive purchaser of forest produce grown in private holdings
It was argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General that section 51a was totally out of tune with the rest of the provisions and while the rest of the provisions dealt with forest produce grown in private holdings the very wide language of section 51a made it applicable to all forest produce whether grown in private holdings or Government forests
We do not think that it is permissible for us to construe section 51 a in the very wide terms in which we are asked to construe it by the learned Additional Solicitor General because of its wide language as that would merely introduce needless confusion into the scheme of the Act
Having scanned the object and the scheme of the Act having examined each of the provisions of the Act textually and contextually we do not think that it is proper for us to construe the words of section 51a in their literal sense we think that the proper way to construe section 51a is to give a restricted meaning to the wide and general words there used so as to fit into the general scheme of the Act
Section 51a and 51b are connected by the conjunction and  and having regard to the circumstances leading to the enactment and the policy and design of the Act we think that clauses a and b must be construed in such a way as to reflect each other
We have no doubt that the contracts relating to specified forest produce which stand rescinded are contracts in rela tion to forest produce grown in private holdings only
If the very object of the Act is to create a monopoly in forest produce in the Government so as to enable the Government among other things to enter into contracts there was no point in rescinding contracts already validly entered into by the Government
Again section 51 does not bar any future contracts by the Government in respect of forest produce if so what is the justification for construing section 51a in such a way as to put an end to contracts already entered into by the Government
Viewing section 51a and 51b together and in the light of the preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons and against the decor of the remain ing provisions of the Act we have no doubt that section 51 like the rest of the provisions applies to forest produce grown in private holdings and not to forest produce grown in Government lands
One of the submissions of the learned Additional Solici tor General was that despite noticing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that sal seeds  were grown in Govern ment lands only yet sal seeds  were included in the defini tion of forest produce and this was a clear indication that forest produce grown in Government lands was 333 also meant to be dealt with by the Act
We do not think that the mere inclusion of sal seeds  in the definition of forest produce can lead to such consequences in the teeth of the several provisions of the Act
Several species of forest produce were included in the definition of forest produce and among them sal seeds  were also included so as to eliminate even the remote possibility of the existence of some stray private holdings in which sal seeds may have been grown
In the view that we have taken it is unnecessary for us to consider the further submission that Explanation II to section 51 saves the present contract or t hat Explanation II is an explanation only to section 51a and not to section 51b
We declare that the Act and the notification issued under the Act do not apply to forest produce grown in Government forests and that it was not therefore open to the Govern ment to treat the contract dated May 25 1979 as rescinded
As a result of the attitude of the Government in treating the contract as rescinded from the date of the notification the appellants were not able to collect and purchase the sal seeds from the Government forests which they have taken on lease for a period of about four years
The question arises whether any further relief in addition to declaration may be granted by us
It was suggested on behalf of the appellants that their lease should be extended by another period of four years
We do not think that it is permissible for us to extend the lease for a further period of four years in that fashion
We can only leave it open to the parties to work out their rights in the light of the declaration granted by us
We find that various interim orders were made from time to time
The rights of the parties will naturally have to be worked out after taking into account the interim orders
Civil Appeal No 6231 is an appeal by other persons similarly placed as the appellants in Civil Appeal No 6230 of 1983 in respect of a different contract
Both the appeals are allowed with costs in the manner indicated above
We mentioned at the outset that although several species of forest produce were included in the definition of forest produce under the Act the only notification issued under the Act in respect of any specie of forest produce was in respect of sal seeds an item in respect of which no notifi cation whatsoever was necessary if what was stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons was correct
We are not a little surprised that the only occasion for using the ma chinery of Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 was to issue a notification in respect of sal seeds and not in respect of other forest produce leaving an uneasy feeling with us that the notification was issued only with the object of putting an end to 334 these contracts solemnly entered into by the Orissa Govern ment for the avowed purpose of encouraging the setting up of certain industries in the State of Orissa
The allegation of the appellants is that this has been done with a view to help certain industrialists outside the State
We desire to express no opinion on this allegation
PSS Appeals allowed


Summary:
Sub section 1 of section 5 of the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 provides that on the issue of a notification under sub section
3 of section 1 in respect of an area a all contracts for the purchase sale gathering or collection of specified forest produce shall stand rescind ed and b no person other than the State Government or its officers or agents shall purchase or transport any specified forest produce in the said area
Explanation II thereto provides that purchase of specified forest produce from the State Government or its officers or agents is not to be deemed to be a purchase in contravention of the provisions of the Act
The appellant company was granted a licence for collec tion sale and purchase of sal seeds from Government forests on the stipulation that it would establish solvent extrac tion units in backward areas
The appellant company was to supply sal seeds to these extraction plants
The agreement was renewed for a further period of ten years from October 1 1979
The State Government by a notification dated Decem ber 9 1982 issued under sub section
3 of section 1 brought the Act into force immediately in the whole of the State in relation to sal seeds
Thereafter it refused to accept royalty from the appellant on the ground that the notification had the effect of rescinding the contract between the company and the Government
318 A writ petition filed by the company for a declaration that the abovesaid notification did not have the effect of rescinding their contract with the State Government was dismissed by the High Court
In the appeals to this Court it was contended for the appellants that the Act had no application to the produce grown in Government forests that the Act was aimed at creating a monopoly in forest produce in the Government by vesting in it the exclusive right to purchase forest produce grown in private holdings and that even otherwise Explana tion II to section 51 saved such contracts for the purchase of specified forest produce from Government lands also
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the very wide language of section 51a made it applicable to all forest produce whether grown in private holdings or Government forests and that the contract being for collection and not for purchase of forest produce it was not saved by the Explanation II to section 51
Allowing the appeals the Court HELD 1
The Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act 1981 and the notification issued under it do not apply to the forest produce grown in Government forests
It was not therefore open to the Government to treat the con tracts with the appellants as rescinded
333C 2
The scheme of the Act is fully in tune with the object set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and in the Preamble namely that of creating a monopoly in forest produce by making the Government the exclusive pur chaser of forest produce grown in private holdings
Sections 4 51b 53 7 8 and 9 deal with purchase of forest produce by the State Government
This can only be of forest produce grown in private holdings and not in Government forests since there can be no question of or providing for the purchase by the Government of forest produce grown on Government lands
The only provision in the Act which ex pressly deals with sale of forest produce by the State Government is section 12 and that again is confined to the sale of specified forest produce purchased by the State Govern ment
The Act therefore cannot to said to have any appli cation to produce grown in Government forests
331H 332A 331FG EF CD F 323E 31 The safest guide to the interpretation of a statute is the reason for it which can he discovered through exter nal and internal aids
The external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill is 319 presented to Parliament the reports of Committees which preceded the Bill and the reports of Parliamentary Commit tees
Occasional excursions into the debates of Parliament are permitted
Internal aids are the Preamble the scheme and the provisions of the Act
328EF 32
No provision in the statute and no word of the statute may be construed in isolation
Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed
The setting and pat tern are important
Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily
It is neither expected to use unnecessary expressions nor to express itself unnecessarily
While the words of an enactment are important the context is no less important
The fact that general words are used in a statute is not in itself a conclusive reason why every case failing literally within them should be governed by that statute
The context of an Act may well indicate that wide or general words should be given a restrictive meaning
328F 329B Attorney General vs HRH Prince Augustus  Chertsey UDCv
Mixnam s Properties  Empress Mills vs Municipal Committee Wardha  and Maunsell vs Olins  referred to
41 It is not permissible to the Court to construe the wide and general words of section 51a in their literal sense as that would not be in consonance with the scheme of the Act
The proper way to construe that provision is to give a restricted meaning to the wide language there used so as to fit into the general scheme of the Act
332B D 42 Section 51a and 51b are connected by the conjunction and  and having regard to the circumstances leading to the enactment and the policy and design of the Act clsa and b must be construed in such a way as to reflect each other
Viewing section 51a and 51b together and in the light of the Preamble and the Statement of Ob jects and Reasons and against the decor of the remaining provisions of the Act it is apparent that section 51 like the rest of the provisions applied to forest produce grown in private holdings and not to forest produce grown in Govern ment lands
332D F G 5
The contracts relating to specified forest produce which therefore stood rescinded were contracts in relation to forest produce grown in private holdings only
Since the very object to the Act was to create a monopoly in forest produce in the Government so as to enable the Government among other things to enter into contracts and since 320 section 51 does not bar any future contracts by the Government in respect of the forest produce there was no justification in rescinding contracts solemnly entered into by the Govern ment for the avowed purpose of encouraging the setting up of certain industries in the State
332E 334A 6
The object of the Act was to prevent smuggling of those varieties of forest produce as were grown both in Government forests and private lands
It was expressly mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that such varieties of forest produce were unlike sal seeds which were grown only in Government forests
Even so the only notifica tion ever issued under the Act was in respect of sal seeds and no other forest produce
The mere inclusion of sal seeds  in the definition of forest produce  cannot in the teeth of the several provisions of the Act lead to the inference that forest produce grown in Government lands was also meant to be dealt with by the Act
Several species of forest produce were included in the definition of forest produce and among them sal seeds  were also included so as to eliminate even the remote possibility of the existence of some stray private holdings in which sal seeds may have been grown
324G 325A 333AB 7
The circumstance that grower of forest produce  is defined so as to include the Government is of no consequence in determining whether the Act is applicable to forest produce grown on Government lands
The expression grower of forest produce  is not found in any other provision except section 52a and section 10
Section 52a provides for the transport of forest produce by the grower from a place within one unit to another place within the unit
Section 10 requires every grower of specified forest produce to get himself registered in the prescribed manner
Neither section 52a nor section 10 has therefore any application to the Government lands
331B A 8
It is not necessary to consider the submission that Explanation II to section 51 saves the present contract or that Explanation I1 is an explanation only to section 51a and not to section 51b
333B It is not permissible for the Court to extend the period of lease of the appellants by way of relief for the business lost
The parties to work out their rights in the light of the various interim orders and the declaration granted by the Court  333E