WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATIONversusM/S. INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER

                [201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 689

 WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION                        A
                               V.
   M/S. INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
             (Civil Appeal No.3865 of 2006)
                     OCTOBER 19, 2010                   .,
                                                                   B
      [G.5. SINGHVI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.)

       West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act,
 1947 - ss. 11 (1 )(f) and 2(d) - Premises belonging to
 respondent No. 1 requisitioned by State Government and C
 transferred to appellant - Compensation payable to
resrondent no. 1 not fixed by agreement - Arbitrator,
 appointed for determination of compensation, passed award
- Appellant filed appeal challenging the award - High Court
 declined to entertain the appeal holding that appellant was not D
 a 'person interested' in the compensation payable on account
 of requisition of the premises - Held: A person for whose
 benefit the premises are requisitioned or to whom the
 requisitioned premises are transferred does not have any
 locus to participate in the process of determination of E
 compensation by agreement, or in the matter of appointment
 of an Arbitrator or reference of case to the Arbitrator or
 nomination of an assessor -:-- A person like the appellant can
 neither submit opinion u/s.11(1)(d) as to the fair amount of
 compensation nor the Arbitrator is obliged to give notice and F
 opportunity of hearing to such person uls.11(1)(e) rlw s.12(a),
 (b) or (c) - The appellant is neither entitled to copy of the
 arbitral award as of right nor can he challenge the award by
 filing an appeal u/ s. 11 (1 )(f) - The definition of the expression
 'person interested' as contained in s.2(d) is exhaustive - G
 Appellant is not covered by the said definition and, as such,
 its appeal was rightly dismissed by the High Court as not
 maintainable - West Bengal Premises Requisition and
 Control Rules, 1947 - rr.7-10, 13 and 15.

                              689                                  H
    690    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A        Interpretation of Statutes - Definition clause - Inclusive
    definition and exhaustive definition - Difference elucidated.

       The premises belonging to respondent no.1 was
  requisitioned by the State Government under Section 3
  of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act,
8
  1947. After taking possession of the requisitioned
  premises, the State Government transferred the same to
  the appellant. Since the amount of compensation payable
  to respondent no.1 in lieu of the requisition of its property
  could not be fixed by agreement, the State Government
C appointed an Arbitrator under Section 11 (1 )(b) of the Act.

        The Arbitrator passed the award under Section
  11 (1 )(e) of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal
  under Section 11 (1 )(f). The Division Bench of the High
D Court, however, declined to entertain the appeal holding
  that the appellant was not a 'person interested' in the
  compensation payable on account of requisition of the
  premises in quetsion and did not have the right to
  participate in the arbitration proceedings or file an appeal
E against the arbitral award.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD:1.1. From an analysis of Sections 2(d), 3(1), 6,
  11, 12 and 13 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition
F and Control Act, 1947 and Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15 of
  the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Rules,
  1947, it is clear that neither at the stage of fixing the
  amount of compensation by agreement nor at the time of
  appointment of Arbitrator, the State Government is
G required to consult any person including beneficiary of
  the requisition. The only person with whom the State
  Government is required to negotiate the amount of ,
  compensation is the one whose premises are
  requisitioned. An application for reference of the case to
H the Arbitrator can be made only by a person who was a
WEST 81::.NGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v. 691
          INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD.

party to the unsuccessful exercise undertaken for fixing        A
the amount of compensation by agreement. If the State
Governm~nt nominates a person having expert
knowledge as to the nature of the requisitioned premises
to assist th~ Arbitrator, a corresponding right is available
to the person whose premises are requisitioned to               B
nominate an assessor. In terms of Section 11 (1 )(d), only
the State Government and the person to be compensated
have the right to state their respective opinions as to the
fair amount of compensation. The person to whom the
requisitioned premises are transferred has no role in any       c
on6 of these matters. The use of expression 'the person
to be compensated' in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 11 (1)
clinches the issue. A person like the appellant certainly
does not fall in the category of the person to be
compensated. [Para 11] [700-G-H; 701-A-D]
                                                                D
    1.2. A person for whose benefit the premises are
requisitioned or to whom the requisitioned premises are
transferred does not have any locus to participate in the
process of determination of compensation by agreement,
or in the matter of appointment of an Arbitrator or             E
reference of case to the Arbitrator or nomination of an
assessor. A person like the appellant can neither submit
opinion under Section 11 (1 )(d) as to the fair amount of
compensation nor the Arbitrator is obliged to give notice
and opportunity of hearing to such person under Section         F
11(1)(e) read with Section 12(a), (b) or (c). Therefore, such
person is neither entitled to copy of the award as of right
nor he can challenge the award by filing an appeal under
Section 11 (1 )(f) and the High Court did not commit any
error by declaring that the appeal filed by the appellant       G
was not maintainable. [Para 12} [701-E-G}

     1.3. The definition of the expression 'person
interested' as contained in Section 2(d) of the Act is

                                                                H
    692    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A exhaustive. The appellant does not fall within the
  definition of the expression 'person interested' within the
  meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and is not entitled to
  challenge the award of the Arbitrator. [Paras 14 and '15]
  [702-C-D; 705-8-D]
B      UP. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2
    sec 326 - distinguished.
       P. Kasilingam v. P. S. G. College of Technology (1995)
  Supp 2 SCC 348; Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.
C v. Employees Union (2007) 4 SCC 685; N. D. P.
  Namboodripad v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 502; Hamdard
  (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner (2007) 5
  SCC 281; Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis
  Victor Coutinho (1980) 3 SCC 223 - referred to.
D
                        Case Law Reference:
          (1995) 2 sec 326        distinguished    Para 7
          (1995) Supp 2 sec 348   referred to      Para 14·
E         (2001) 4 sec 685        referred to      Para 14
          (2007) 4 sec 502        referred to      Para 14
          (2007) 5 sec 281        referred to      Para 14
          (1980) 3 sec 223        referred to      Para 15
F
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3865 of 2006.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 08.04.2005 of the High
G Court at Calcutta in, FA. No. 27 of 2005.

         S.B. Upadhyay, Kumud Lata Das, Param Kr. Mishra, for
    the Appellant.

      A.K. Ganguli, Rakesh Dwivedi, K.A. Bhaduri, Sampa
H Sengupta Roy, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Chaitanya Safaya,
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v. 693
       INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD.
Preetika Dwivedi, Amit Singh, Vijat Shekhar Singh, Tara              A
Chandra Sharma, Kishan Datta for the Respondents,

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court whereby        B
it declined to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant under
Section 11 (1 )(f) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and
Control Act, 194 7 (for short, 'the Act') against award dated
1.1.2003 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 11 (1 )(e).
                                                                     c
    2. The premises belonging to respondent No.1 (covered
area measuring 11,900 sq. feet and open space measuring
10,620 sq. feet) situated at N.S.C. Bose Road, Tollygunge,
Calcutta was requisitioned by the State Government under
Section 3 of the Act. After taking possession of the                 D
requisitioned premises, the State Government transferred the
same to the appellant.

     3. Since the amount of compensation payable to
respondent No.1 in lieu of the requisition of its property could
not be fixed by agreement, the State Government appointed            E
an Arbitrator under Section 11 (1 )(b) of the Act. Though, the
appellant had no role to play in the matter of determination of
compensation payable to respondent No.1, on being asked by
1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, the appellant got itself
impleaded as party in the arbitration proceedings.                   F

     4. By an award dated 1.1.2003, the Arbitrator held that the
State Government is liable to pay as compensation
Rs.1,60,21, 126/- for the covered area and Rs.54,82,076/- for
the open space with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.           G
     5. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the
appellant represented to the State Government for appointment
of a new Arbitrator by asserting that a retired judicial officer
cannot be appointed to act as an Arbitrator. Thereupon,
Assistant Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department, who             H
    694   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A might not have been aware of the factum of passing of award
  by the Arbitrator on 1.1.2003, sent letter dated 10.1.2003 to the
  Managing Director of the appellant that the judicial department
  of the Government had already been approached for
  appointment of a new Arbitrator. However, no further action
B appears to have been taken by the State Government for
  appointment of new Arbitrator.

       6. After obtaining a copy of the award, the appellant filed
  an appeal under Section 11 (1 )(f), which was dismissed oy the
C Division Bench of the High Court by observing that the appellant
  cannot be treated as a person interested in the compensation
  payable on account of requisition of the premises. The Division
  Bench referred to Section 6 of the Act and held that a person
  acquiring interest in the property does not have the right to
  participate in the arbitration proceedings or file an appeal
D against the award.

        7. Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing
  for the appellant argued that the Division Bench of the High
  Court committed serious error by refusing to entertain the
E appeal ignoring that the appellant falls within the definition of
  the expression 'person interested' contained in Section 2(d) of
  the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that any person who
  is or is likely to be adversely affected by the award of the
  Arbitrator would fall within the ambit of that expression and such
F person is entitled to challenge the award of the Arbitrator by
  filing an appeal under Section 11 (1)(f). Learned senior counsel
  further submitted that the appellant cannot be denied the right
  to challenge the award because it may have to reimburse the
  amount payable to respondent No.1 in terms of the award. In
G support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel relied
  upon the judgment of this Court in UP. Awas Evam Vikas
  Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326.

       8. Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for
  respondent No.1 argued that the High Court did not commit any
H error by non suiting the appellant because it is not covered by
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v. 695
 INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the definition of the expression 'person interested'. Learned       A
senior counsel submitted that transfer of possession of the
requisitioned premises to the appellant does not make the
appellant a person interested in the amount of compensation
payable to respondent No.1 and it has no right to challenge the
award of the Arbitrator. Shri Ganguli distinguished the judgment    B
of this Court in UP. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi
(supra) by pointing out that definition of the expression 'person
interested' contained in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') is inclusive whereas the
definition of the said expression contained in Section 2(d) of      c
the Act is exhaustive.

    9. We have considered the respective submissions.
Sections 2(d), 3(1), 6, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and Rules 7, 8,
9, 10, 13 and 15 of the Rules, which have bearing on the
decision of this appeal read as under:                              D

     The W.B. Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947

     2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless· there is anything
     repugnant in the subject or context,-
                                                                    E
     (d) "persons interested" means any person claiming an
     interest in compensation payable on account of requisition
     of any premises under this Act;

     3. Power to requisition.- (1) Whenever it appears to the F
     State Government that any premises in any locality are
     needed or are likely to be needed for any public purpose,
     it may, by order in writing, requisition such premises either
     with or without any or all of the furniture, if any, in such
     premises:                                                     G
     Provided that no premises exclusively used for the purpose
     of religious worship shall be requisitioned under this
     section.

     6. Disposal of premises after requisition.- When any           H
    696     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         premises have been requisitioned under sub-section (1)
          of section 3, the State Government may use or deal with
          them, for such public purpose and in such manner as may
          appear to it to be expedient.

          11. Procedure for fixing compensation.- (1) Where
B
          any premises are requisitioned under this Act, there shall
          be paid to all persons interested compensation the
          amount of which shall be determined in the manner, and
          in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out,
          namely:-
c
           (a)   where the amount of compensation can be fixed by
                 agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such
                 agreement;

D          (b)   where no such agreement can be reached, the
                 State Government shall appoint a District Judge or
                 an Additional District Judge as arbitrator;

           (c)   the State Government may, in any particular case,
                 nominate a person having expert knowledge as to
E                the nature of the premises requisitioned, to assist
                 the arbitrator, and where such nomination is made,
                 the person to be compensated may also nominate
                 an assessor for the said purpose;

F          (d)   at the commencement of the proceedings before
                 the arbitrator, the State Government and the person
                 to be compensated shall state what in their
                 respective opinions is a fair amount of
                 compensation;
G          (e)   the Arbitrator shall, in determining the amount of
                 compensation to be awarded to the landlord, have
                 regard to the matters referred to in clauses (a}, (b)
                 and (c) of section 12;

H
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v. 697
 INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

   (f)   an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an         A
         award of an arbitrator;

  12. Matters to be considered in fixing compensation
  by agreement.- In determining the amount of
  compensation which may be fixed by agreement under 8
  clause {a) of sub-section ( 1) of section 11, the Collector
  shall take into consideration-

   (a)   the rent payable in respect of the premises including
         where the premises are requisitioned with any
         furniture therein, the charges for the use of such       C
         furniture;

   (b)   if, in consequence of the requisition of the premises,
         the person interested is compelled to change his
         residence or place of business or to remove his          D
         furniture or other articles to any_other place, the
         reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such
         change or removal and

   (c)   the damage or loss of income (if any) sustained by
         the person interested between the date of service E
         of the order under sub-section (1) or under clause
         (b) of sub-section (3) of section 3, as the case may
         be, on such person and the date when the Collector
         takHs possession of the premises.
                                                                  F
  13. Persons with whom agreement is to be entered
  into.- The Collector shall enquire into the respective rights
  of all persons interested in the premises and shall decide
  whether the compensation shall be paid to any such person
  periodically or in lump. The compensation is to be paid G
  periodically the Collector shall, having regard to the terms
  and conditions under which the premises may have been
  let out to a tenant, also decide whether the agreement for
  payment of compensation referred to in section 11 shall
                                                                  H
    698    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         be entered into with such tenant or with the immediate
          landlord of such tenant.

          Rules:

          R.7. The appointment of an Arbitrator under Clause (b) of
B         Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 shall be made by the State
          Government by a notification in the Calcutta Gazette to
          exercise jurisdiction over any specified area or in respect
          of any specified case or case<;>.

c         R.8. Where the amount of compensation payable under
          Section 11 cannot be fixed by agreement any person
          interested may make an application to the Collector for
          referring the case to arbitration with the necessary written
          statement of his claim. The Collector shall on receipt of
D         such application refer the case with all relevant papers to
          the Arbitrator and give an intimation of such reference
          having been made to the person or persons interested and
          the State Government. Where no such application is made
          by any person interested within a reasonable time, the
          Collector himself shall refer the case to the Arbitrator and
E
          give an intimation of such reference having been made to
          the person or persons interested and to the State
          Government.

          R.9. Where the State Government nominates a person
F         having expert knowledge as to the nature of the
          requisitioned premises to assist the Arbitrator the State
          Government shall inform the Arbitrator of such nomination.
          On receipt of the intimation, the Arbitrator shall inform the
          person or persons interested about the nomination with a
G         view to enabling such person or persons to nominate an
          Assessor under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11.
          The nomination of an Assessor shall be made within fifteen
          days of receipt of the information.

          R.10. The person to be nominated under clause 1(c) of
H
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v.                       699
 INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
    sub-section (1) of Section 11 by the State Government and        A
    the Assessor to be nominated under the said clause by
    the person or persons interested such assistance may be
    given such fees as may be fixed by the State Government
    in each case.
                                                                     B
    R.13. When the Arbitrator has made his award, he shall
    sign it and shall give notice in writing of the making and
    signing thereof to the parties to the reference. He shall also
    send to the Collector as well as to the person or persons
    interested a copy of the award with a note appended
    thereto setting forth the grounds on which the award is          C
    based and shall also forward to the Collector the awards
    in original with the records of the proceedings.

     R.15. Any appeal against an award of the Arbitrator shall
     be preferred within six weeks from the date of receipt by       D
     the Collector or by the party by whom the appeal is
     preferred of the copy of the award sent under Rule 13.

            Provided that any such appeal may be admitted even
     if preferred after the said period of six weeks when the        E
     appellant satisfies the High Court that he had sufficient
     cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period.

      10. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows
that in terms of Section 3, the State Government can requisition
any premises needed or likely to be needed for any public            F
purpose. Section 6 provides for disposal of premises after the
same are requisitioned under Section 3(1 ). Under that section,
the State Government has been bestowed with the power to
use or deal with the requisitioned premises for the specified
public purpose. Section 11 (1) postulates payment of                 G
compensation for the requisitioned premises. The amount of
compensation is required to be determined by either of the two
modes prescribed therein. If the parties voluntarily enter into an
agreement on the quantum of compensation, the amount is to
be paid in accordance with such agreement. If there is a tenant      H
    700    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADOL.) S.C.R.


A   in the requisitioned premises then in terms of Section 13 the
    Collector is required to decide whether the agreement for
    payment of compensation shall be entered into with the tenant
    or with the immediate landlord of such tenant. In case the parties
    cannot agree on the quantum of compensation, the State
B   Government is required to appoint a District Judge or an
    Additional District Judge as an Arbitrator and notify the same
    in the Official Gazette [Section 11 (1 )(b) and Rule 7]. Rule 8
    provides that where the amount of compensation payable under
    Section 11 cannot be fixed by agreement, any person
c   interested can make an application to the Collector for referring
    the case to arbitration. Thereupon, the Collector is obliged to
    _refer the case to the Arbitrator and give an intimation to the
    person or persons interested and the State Government.
    Where no such application is made within a reasonable time,
    the Collector can suo moto refer the case to the Arbitrator and
0
    give the required intimation. In terms of clause (c} of Section
    11 (1 ), the State Government is empowered to nominate a
    person having expert knowledge about the nature of the
    premises requisitioned to assist the Arbitrator. In that event, a
    corresponding right is available to the person to be
E   compensated to nominate an assessor. At the commencement
    of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the State Government
    and the person entitled to receive compensation are required
    to state their respective opinions as to the fair amount of
    compensation [Section 11 (1 )(d)]. Thereafter, the Arbitrator has
F   to determine the amount of compensation keeping in view the
    matters enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12.
    Once the award is made and signed, the Arbitrator has to
    inform the parties to the reference by sending a notice in writing
    and also send copies of the award to the Collector and the
G   person or persons interested (Rule 13).

       11. What is most significant to note is that neither at the
  stage of fixing the amount of compensation by agreement nor
  at the time of appointment of Arbitrator, the State Government
H is required to consult any person including beneficiary of the
 WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v. 701
  INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
requisition. The only person with whom the State Government         A
is required to negotiate the amount of compensation is the one
whose premises are requisitioned. An application for reference
of the case to the Arbitrator can be made only by a person who
was a party to the unsuccessful exercise undertaken for fixing
the amount of compensation by agreement. If the State               B
Government nominates a person having expert knowledge as
to the nature of the requisitioned premises to assist the
Arbitrator, a corresponding right is available to the person
whose premises are requisitioned to nominate an assessor.
In terms of Section 11 (1 )(d), only the State Government and the   c
person to be compensated have the right to li>tate their
respective opinions as to the fair amount of compensation. The
 person to whom the requisitioned premises are transferred has
 no role in any one of these matters. The use of expression 'the
 person to be compensated' in clauses (c) and (d) of Section        D
 11 (1) clinches the issue. A person like the appellant certainly
does not fall in the category of the person to be compensated.

      12. As a sequel to the above, it must be held that a person
for whose benefit the premises are requisitioned or to whom
the requisitioned premises are transferred does not have any        E
locus to participate in the process of determination of
compensation by agreement, or in the matter of appointment
of an Arbitrator or reference of case to the Arbitrator or
nomination of an assessor. A person like the appellant can
neither submit opinion under Section 11 (1 )(d) as to the fair      F
amount of compensation nor the Arbitrator is obliged to give
notice and opportunity of hearing to such person under Section
11 (1 )(e) read with Section 12(a), (b) or (c). Therefore, such
person is neither entitled to copy of the award as of right nor
he can challenge the award by filing an appeal under Section        G
11 (1 )(f) and the High Court did not commit any error by
declaring that the appeal filed by the appellant was not
maintainable.

     13. Section 3(b) of the 1894 Act, which also contains
                                                                    H
    702     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   definition of the expression 'person interested' and which was
    interpreted by the Constitution Bench in UP. Awas Evam Vikas
    Parishad v. Gyan Devi (supra), reads as under:

          "3(b). the expression "person interested" includes all
          persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made
B
          on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a
          person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is
          interested in an easement affecting the land."

       14. A comparative study of the two definitions of
C expression 'person interested', one contained in Section 3(b)
  of the 1894 Act and the other contained in Section 2(d) of the
  Act shows that while the first definition is inclusive, the second
  definition is exhaustive. The difference between exhaustive and
  inclusive definitions has been explained in P. Kasilingam v.
D P.S.G. College of Technology (1995) Supp 2 SCC 348 in the
  following words:

          "A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature
          by using the word 'means' or the word 'includes'.
          Sometimes the words 'means and includes' are used. The
E
          use of the word 'means' indicates that "definition is a hard-
          and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned
          to the expression than is put down in definition". (See :
          Gough v. Gough; Punjab Land Development and
          Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour
F         Court.) The word 'includes' when used, enlarges the
          meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend
          not only such things as they signify according to their natural
          import but also those things which the clause declares that
          they shall include. The words "means and includes", on the
G         other hand, indicate "an exhaustive explanation of the
          meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably
          be attached to these words or expressions". (See: Dilworth
          v. Commissioner of Stamps (Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi
          Oil Mills v. State of AP. The use of the words "means and
H
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v.                       703
 INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
    includes" in Rule 2(b) would, therefore, suggest that the         A
    definition of 'college' is. intended to be exhaustive and not
    extensive and would cover only the educational institutions
    falling in the categories specified in Rule 2(b) and other
    educational institutions are not comprehended. Insofar as
    engineering colleges are concerned, their exclusion may           B
    be for the reason that the opening and running of the
    private engineering colleges are controlled through the
    Board of Technical Education and Training and the Director
    of Technical Education in accordance with the directions
    issued by the AICTE from time to time."                           c
      In Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Employees
Union (2007) 4 SCC 685, this Court again considered the
difference between the inclusive and exhaustive definitions and
observed:
                                                                      D
    "When in the definition clause given in any statute the word
    "means" is used, what follows is intended to speak
    exhaustively. When the word "means" is used in the
    definition it is a "hard-and-fast" definition and no meaning
    other than that which is put in the definition can be assigned    E
    to the same. On the other hand, when the word "includes"
    is used in the definition, the legislature does not intend to
    restrict the definition: it makes the definition enumerative
    but not exhaustive. That is to say, the term defined will
    retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be                F
    extended to bring within it matters, which in its ordinary
    meaning may or may not comprise. Therefore, the use of
    the word "means" followed by the word "includes" in the
    definition of "banking company" in Section 2(bb) of the ID
    Act is clearly indicative of the legislative intent to make the   G
    definition exhaustive and would cover only those banking
    companies which fall within the purview of the definition
    and no other."

     In N.D.P. Namboodripad v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC
502, the Court observed :                                             H
     704     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A          "The word "includes" has different meanings in different
           contexts. Standard dictionaries assign more than one
           meaning to the word "include". Webster's Dictionary
           defines the word "include" as synonymous with "comprise"
           or "contain". Illustrated Oxford Dictionary defines the word
B          "include" as: (i) comprise or reckon in as a part of a whole;
           (ii) treat or regard as so included. Collins Dictionary of
           English Language defines the word "includes" as: (i) to
           have as contents or part of the contents; be made up of
           or contain; (ii) to add as part of something else; put in as
c          part of a set, group or a category; (iii) to contain as a
           secondary or minor ingredient or element. It is no doubt
           true that generally when the word "include" is used in a
           definition clause, it is used as a word of enlargement, that
           is to make the definition extensive and not restrictive. But
           the word "includes" is also used to connote a specific
D
           meaning, that is, as "means and includes" or "comprises"
           or "consists of'."

        In Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour
     Commissioner (2007) 5 SCC 281, it was held as under:
c:
           "When an interpretation clause uses the word "includes",
           it is prima facie extensive. When it uses the word "means
           and includes", it will afford an exhaustive explanation to the
           meaning which for the purposes of the Act must invariably
F          be attached to the word or expression."

         15. The judgment in UP. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v.
  Gyan Devi (supra) is clearly distinguishable. The question wh;ch
  fell for consideration of the Constitution Bench was whether the
  appellant was entitled to participate in the proceedings of the
G Tribunal constituted under Section 64 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas
  and Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and lead evidence on the
  issue of payment of compensation to the land owners. After
  adverting to the definition of 'person interested' contained in
  Section 3(b), Sections 11, 17, 18 and 50 of the 1894 Act, as
H
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. v.                      705
 INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
amended in 1984, and making a reference to an earlier               A
judgment in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis
Victor Coutinho (1980) 3 SCC 223, this Court held that local
authority is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the
proceedings before the Reference Court and in case the
amount of compensation is enhanced by the Court, the local          B·
authority can file an appeal with the leave of the Court subject
to the condition that no appeal is filed by the Government. The
ratio of this decision cannot be invoked for declaring that the
appellant falls within the definition of the expression 'person
interested' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and is    c
entitled to challenge the award of the Arbitrator because the
definition which was interpreted by the Constitution Bench was
inclusive and not exhaustive. The other judgments in which
Section 3(b) of the 1894 Act is interpreted are likewise not
relevant for deciding the issue raised in this case.
                                                                    D
      16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are       \
left to bear their own costs.

B.B.B.                                      Appeal dismissed.