Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, ASHA PATHAK, F.S.NARIMAN, G.RAMASVAMY, M.M.KSHATRIYA, R.F.NARIMAN, R.K.MEHTA, S.N.KACKAR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a case involving Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. versus the State of Orissa regarding the validity of contracts for the collection and sale of Sal Seeds [judgement_subject] (!) (!) .
• The State of Orissa had granted a license to Utkal Contractors to collect Sal Seeds from eleven Forest Divisions, with stipulations to establish solvent extraction units in backward areas (!) (!) .
• The Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Bill 1981 was introduced to prevent smuggling of forest produce grown in both private holdings and Government forests, noting that Sal Seeds were grown exclusively in Government forests (!) (!) [1000277220001].
• The Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 received assent in August 1981, and a notification was issued in December 1982 bringing the Act into force for Sal Seeds, which the Government claimed rescinded the existing contracts [1000277220002].
• The Government argued that Section 5(1)(a) of the Act rescinded all contracts for the purchase, sale, gathering, or collection of specified forest produce, regardless of whether they were grown in Government or private forests [1000277220003] (!) (!) .
• The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons explicitly stated Sal Seeds were grown only in Government forests, yet a notification was issued solely for them, raising suspicions about the Act's true intent [1000277220002][1000277220004][1000277220017].
• The Court analyzed the definition of "grower of forest produce" and other provisions of the Act, concluding that the legislative scheme was designed to create a State monopoly by giving the Government the exclusive right to purchase forest produce from private holdings [1000277220005][1000277220014].
• The Court held that general words in the Act must be construed in the context of its object and scheme, meaning Section 5(1) applies only to forest produce grown in private holdings, not in Government forests [1000277220008][1000277220014].
• Consequently, the Court declared that the Act and the notification issued under it do not apply to forest produce grown in Government forests, and the Government could not treat the contract as rescinded [1000277220016].
• While the appellants requested an extension of their lease, the Court declined to extend it directly but left it open to the parties to work out their rights in light of the declaration [1000277220016].
• The appeal was allowed, and the Court expressed concern that the notification might have been issued merely to terminate contracts that were entered into to encourage industrial development in the State [1000277220016][1000277220017].