Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are six stamp vendors who were licenced under the Cochin Stamp Act, VI of 1083, and the rules framed thereunder, and whose licenses are still in force. They used to receive a commission on the sales effected by them at the following rates as per the order of the Government of Cochin in the Public and Political Department, No. M3.38490/22 dated 21.10.1948 (Ext. B): "a) Commission on 1 anna receipt stamps - 3% b) do on non judicial stamp papers - 5% on stamp papers upto and inclusive of Rs. 5/- and 3% on stamp papers upto and inclusive of Rs. 100. c) do judicial stamps and stamp papers -11/2 % upto and inclusive of Rs. 100". 2. We are only concerned in this case with item (b) above. R.35 of the rules framed by the Government of Travancore-Cochin in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Ss.78 and 79 of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act, 1125, provides: "The rate of discount that will be allowed to the licenced vendors on their purchase will be 3% on all denominations of stamps of and below the value of Rs. 50 in the Deviculam and Peermade Taluks; 3 % on one anna receipt stamps in all places and 2% on all other denominations in places other than Deviculam and Peermade Taluks". and on the strength of this rule the Government have rejected the request of the petitioners for payment of commission in accordance with the provisions of Ext. B.R. 32 of the said rules has no doubt restricted the sales by the vendors to stamps of denominations of and below Rs. 50 but their case is that as far as the stamps they are still authorised to sell are concerned they are entitled to commission at the rates specified in Ext.B. According to them R. 35 does not stand by itself and should be construed in the light of the proviso to R. 36. 3. R. 36 reads as follows: "Cases in which no discount is allowed. No discount shall be given on the purchase of any stamps exceeding Rs. 50 in value, nor on any stamps applied on material furnished by the purchaser himself. 3. R. 36 reads as follows: "Cases in which no discount is allowed. No discount shall be given on the purchase of any stamps exceeding Rs. 50 in value, nor on any stamps applied on material furnished by the purchaser himself. Provided that the rates of discount allowed to licenced stamp vendors under the Cochin Stamp Rules shall continue to be in force during the currency of the licenses issued under the above said Rules". It is agreed that the portion of the rule which preceds the proviso serves no useful purpose in the light of R. 32 which has restricted sales by the vendors to denominations of and below Rs. 50 and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of this the proviso should be deemed to be, in effect, attached not to R. 36 but to R.35. There can be no doubt that if the words "Provided that the rates of discount allowed to licensed stamp vendors under the Cochin Stamp Rules shall continue to be in force during the currency of the licenses issued under the aforesaid Rules" occurred in R. 35 instead of R. 36 the petitioners' prayer is justified and that this petition should be allowed. 4. We are, however, unable to transfer the proviso to R. 35 as desired and can only conclude that if the enacting portion of R. 36 is useless, the proviso is also useless and unavailable for any purpose whatsoever. The office of a proviso is to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify and restrain its generality and prevent misinterpretation (266 U.S. 531) and as stated by Crawford (Statutory Construction, p. 605) the general rule is that "the operation of a proviso should be confined to that clause or portion of the statute which directly preceds it in the statute". We see no reason to depart from that rule in this case. 5. Our attention has also been drawn to columns 12,13 and 14 of Form No. IV, one of the nine Forms attached to the rules concerned. We see no reason to depart from that rule in this case. 5. Our attention has also been drawn to columns 12,13 and 14 of Form No. IV, one of the nine Forms attached to the rules concerned. Those columns relate to payment of discount at 61/4 %, 5% and 3% respectively and the argument was that a column for the payment of discount at 5% is indicative of the intention to continue the old rates in force and that the indication of such an intention in Form IV must support the contention that the proviso to R. 36 should be construed as governing the ambit of R.35. We cannot agree. Apart from the fact that Form IV cannot be used to control the plain meaning of a rule like R. 35, it is clear that the Form has been drafted under some misapprehension. Column 12, for example, provides for a discount at 61/4 %, a rate which does not obtain under the rules and which we are assured did not even exist at the time the rules were framed in any portion of the Travancore or Cochin areas of the State. The mistake has apparently been discovered after the filing of this petition for we find a notification in the Travancore-Cochin Gazette dated the 16th November, 1954 (Part I, p. 1475) which provides: "In Form IV appended to the said Rules - (1) For the existing entry "Discount at 61/4 %" occurring in Column 2 thereof the following shall be substituted, viz., Discounts at 2%; (2) for existing entry "Discount at 5%" occurring in column 13 the following shall be substituted, viz., "Discount at 3 % "; as 14 and 15 respectively". 6. In the light of what is stated above this petition must fail and it is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, we shall make no order as to costs. Dismissed.