Judgment

RAJU DORAISWAMY, J.

(1) THE above appeal is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court whereunder the claim of the appellant to quash the notice dated 16-11-1995 asking the Vice-President of the appellant Company to take licence under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came to be rejected and the Court also declined to grant a declaration sought for that the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") are not applicable to them.

(2) THE appellant Company is engaged in manufacturing and assembling of vehicles of various descriptions including trucks and light motor vehicles, such as car, jeep, etc., at its various factories situate in different parts of the country including the State of Bihar. The activities of the Company consist of manufacturing of trucks of various descriptions and size, as also their components. The Company, in the course of its manufacturing activities, requires articles and components made of wood for being used as battery base for chassis, gaggers for production of tool box, pallet platform, staging platform, staging for CED/MC wheel carrier, etc. To meet such requirements, the Company claims to purchase substantial and huge quantity of wood/timber from registered dealers having valid licences and the same is used in their own sawmills located inside their factory premises for manufacturing the various wooden components required for their main business. On an inspection made, the Company was found to have been running about 5 to 8 sawmills inside their premises and indisputably they have not obtained any licence either under the Act in question or the Forest Act for transport of the timber purchased by them, their claim throughout being that they are not carrying on any trade in timber as such, by selling the wood to any outsider nor are they engaged in the activities of saw trading as such and that they are not covered under the Act with any liability to take out any licence or pay any licence fee therefor.

(3) THE Division Bench of the High Court repelled the contentions of the Company and held that the admitted nature of activities of the Company are sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act and the theory of end-product use or that they are only incidental to the main business activity of manufacturing automobile vehicles, have no relevance in adjudging their liabilities under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The definitions contained in the Act of "sawmill", "saw-pit" and "sawing" were held to be of sufficient amplitude to cover the activities of the Company. Hence, this appeal.

(4) SHRI R.F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, while ably presenting the case of the appellants reiterated the stand taken before the High Court and vehemently contended that the existence of "sawmills" or "saw-pits" or the mere activity of "sawing" by themselves are not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder - those activities of the Company being carried not by way of trade in timber but only as ancillary and incidental to their main business of manufacturing and selling automobiles of various kinds and varieties. The further submission on behalf of the appellant is that it is always necessary to find out the object and reason as well as the reach of the statutory provisions and the general words in the statute/rules would take colour only from the reason for it. Argued the learned counsel further that as long as the activities of the Company are not in the course of any trade as such in timber and the machineries installed in the factory premises are for cutting the timber purchased by them lawfully from registered and licensed dealers for manufacturing the various components of the automobiles only the provisions of the Act and the Rules made the