JUDGMENT : N. P. Singh, J. - The petitioner bas filed this writ application for quashing an ORDER :dated 18.5.1984 passed by the Director, Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') holding that the refined coconut oil is a vegetable oil, and, as such, an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it manufactures crystal clear refined coconut oil for use as a hair oil which is sold in different markets of Bihar. It has been stated that since the year 1975 the petitioner had been receiving notice from the authorities of the respondent-Board directing the petitioner to get itself registered as a trader in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of coconut oil. The petitioner has resisted the said claim by saying that coconut oil was not an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a). According to the petitioner, unless coconut oil is held to be a vegetable oil it is not covered by any of the items mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. It was submitted that coconut cannot be held to be a vegetable so that its oil can be included under the item “vegetable oil”. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the definition of 'agricultural produce' as it stood before the amendment introduced by Act 60 of 1982. Section 2(1)(a) was as follows : ‘agricultural produce’ includes all produce, whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest specified in the Schedule." It was submitted that all produce whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest as specified in the Schedule of the Act shall only be deemed to be agricultural produce. Our attention was drawn to the different items of the Schedule .and it was pointed out that there was no mention of any coconut oil against any of the items of the schedule. 3. Our attention was drawn to the different items of the Schedule .and it was pointed out that there was no mention of any coconut oil against any of the items of the schedule. 3. Before 1 express my opinion as to whether coconut oil can be held to be an agricultural produce within the meaning of the expression as originally defined, I may point out that the definition of 'agricultural produce' has been substituted by Act 60 of 1982, which came in force on 30.4.1982 and is as follows :- ^^d`f”k mit^^ ls vfHkizsr gS d`f”k n|ku & d`f”k ¼ckxokuh½] cxkuksa] i’kq&ikyu] ou] js’ke&mRiknu] eRL;ikyu dh lHkh mit pkgs og fo|kf;r ¼rS;kj½ gks ;k vfo/kkf;r % fofufeZr gks ;k ugh] vkSj blds vUrxZr vuqlwfp es ;FkkfofufnZ”V i’kq/ku ;k dqDdqV] vkfn Hkh gSA The English rendering of the said new definition is as follows :- 'agricultural produce' means all produce whether processed or non-processed, manufactured or not, of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest sericulture, pisciculture and includes livestock or poultry as specified in the schedule," The new definition appears to have been introduced in the background of controversies raised in different courts as to whether agricultural produce shall include even the manufactured products of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, etc. While saying in clear and unambiguous term that 'agricultural produce' shall mean not only the product of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, forest etc. in its original form, but also what has been processed and. manufactured from such original products, the definition has to a great extent delinked "agricultural produce" from the Schedule of the Act. Under the original definition only such produce or products could be held to be agricultural produce which had been 'specified in the Schedule. The present definition has no such •restriction. Reference to the schedule of Act is only in the context of livestock and poultry and that is also an inclusive one. In other words, now agricultural produce shall mean all produce of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest,. sericulture, pisciculture, live-stocks or poultry including the processed and manufactured products of such produce. In view of the new definition of agricultural produce, in my opinion, it is very difficult on the part of the petitioner to urge that coconut oil shall not be agricultural produce because admittedly it is a processed and manufactured product either of agriculture, or horticulture or plantation. In view of the new definition of agricultural produce, in my opinion, it is very difficult on the part of the petitioner to urge that coconut oil shall not be agricultural produce because admittedly it is a processed and manufactured product either of agriculture, or horticulture or plantation. Now it need not be established that coconut oil is a vegetable oil. Even if coconut is held to be a fruit or a product of plantation, the oil derived from coconut shall be an agricultural produce to which the provisions of the Act shall be applicable. In my view, under the new definition whether a produce or product thereof has been specified in the. Schedule is not of much consequence for being held as an agricultural produce. The only thing which has to be established is as to whether the item in question is a processed or non-processed or manufactured product of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest, sericulture, pisciculture, livestock or poultry. The introduction of the words and includes' is very significant. A mere reading of the Hindi definition which has been introduced by the amendment makes it clear that now schedule is relevant to some extent only in the context with livestock and poultry. As such, after coming into force of Act 60 of 1982, there is no scope for argument that coconut oil shall not be deemed to be an agricultural produce. 4. What was the position prior to the amendment aforesaid is a matter of some controversy. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on a JUDGMENT : of the Madras High Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchivapalli v. Hameed Trading Company [32 (1973) Sales Tax Cases 228] where a question had arisen as to whether coconut is a fresh fruit or vegetable for purpose of exemption under the relevant Sales Tax Act. It was held that as coconut was not a perishable article it cannot be treated as a fresh fruit. It was also pointed out that it was also not a vegetable within the meaning of the words of the notification giving exemption. It was held that as coconut was not a perishable article it cannot be treated as a fresh fruit. It was also pointed out that it was also not a vegetable within the meaning of the words of the notification giving exemption. However, a Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of S. M. Narayana v. S. P. R. M. Subramanian Chettiar (AIR 1937 Madras 254) in context of Estates Lands Act held that Coconuts are fruits and coconut trees are fruit trees and coconut plantation is fruit garden. Even in the aforesaid case of Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Hameed Trading Company [32 (1973) Sales Tax Cases 228] it was pointed out that Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (1962) defines 'fruits' as "(1) vegetable products fit for food, (ii) Edible products of plant or tree consisting of seed or its envelope, specially when this is juicy or pulpy; ripe seeds and structure surrounding them." In the book 'Coconut Palm' by K. P. B. Menon and K.M. Pandala, coconut is 'generally referred to as a 'fruit.' In the Webster's Dictionary 'coconut' has been shown as "(a) fruit of the coconut palm consisting of a thick fibrous brown ovate husk under which there is thick hard shell enclosing the layer of edible white mesh". According to Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, vol. II (printed in 1983), page 1097, 'vegetable oil' means "an oil derived from fruit or plant seeds, having various uses in medicine, cooking, and as a lubricant". Even in Chamber's Encyclopaedia, Vol. III 'coconut' has been described as a fruit. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that once it is held that cocount is a fruit, then it shall be included in the genus of vegetable and any oil derived from such coconut shall be deemed to be vegetable oil. In support of this contention our attention was drawn to Chamber's Encyclopaedia, Vol. X at page 183 "oils and fats". At page 184 a table has been given showing vegetable fats. In that table coconut is also mentioned. According to the learned counsel for the Board from the chemistry of different types of fats mentioned in the aforesaid Encyclopaedia it will appear that coconut oil, although oil from fruit, has been treated as vegetable oil. 6. At page 184 a table has been given showing vegetable fats. In that table coconut is also mentioned. According to the learned counsel for the Board from the chemistry of different types of fats mentioned in the aforesaid Encyclopaedia it will appear that coconut oil, although oil from fruit, has been treated as vegetable oil. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that not much importance should be attached to dictionaries or Encyclopaedias while ascertaining the meaning of vegetable oil, and in this connection reference was made to the JUDGMENT : of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi vs. K. T. Koselram and others ( AIR 1971 SC 1283 ). In that case the Supreme Court observed that Dictionary is not of much aid if the meaning given in the Statute was clear. It is well known that if a particular expression has been defined in any Statute in clear and unambiguous terms then there is no necessity to refer to any Dictionary or Encyclopeadia; necessity to refer to Dictionary or Encyclopaedia arises only when an expression used in the statute has not been clearly and specifically defined or specified. In such a situation, it is always permissible to consider the real meaning of such an expression or article with the help of Dictionary or Encyclopaedia. On this point there are several cases of the Supreme Court and reference can be made to the case of M/s Motipur Zamindary Company v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1962 SC 660 ) where reference was made to Webster's and Oxford Dictionaries while examining the question whether sugarcane was vegetable. In my opinion, coconut is a fruit and it can be included in the definition of vegetable in its generic sense. Once it is held to be a vegetable then coconut oil shall be deemed to be "vegetable oil" as specified in the Schedule. 7. The same question can be examined in another context. Admittedly, coconut has been menti9ned against item 21 of Schedule IX. It might have been mentioned in the Schedule in the category of "Condiments, Spices and others" and not specifically in Schedule V-oils. Once coconut in view of Schedule IX (21) becomes an agricultural produce then any derivative through processing shall also be an agricultural produce. Admittedly, coconut has been menti9ned against item 21 of Schedule IX. It might have been mentioned in the Schedule in the category of "Condiments, Spices and others" and not specifically in Schedule V-oils. Once coconut in view of Schedule IX (21) becomes an agricultural produce then any derivative through processing shall also be an agricultural produce. Even under the old definition "agricultural produce" included all produce "whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture etc." Coconut oil is admitted a processed product of coconut. In such a situation there is no escape from the conclusion that coconut oil was an agricultural produce under the old definition and now there should not be any controversy in respect thereof after introduction of the new definition of "agricultural produce" in the Act. 8. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no ORDER :as to costs. Yadunath Sharan Singh, J. - I agree.