B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed his nomination paper claiming to be an agriculturist for election as Member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Banapura His nomination paper was accepted. He contested the election and was duly elected. Voter Kailash, son of Mathura Prasad filed an election petition questioning the petitioner's election on the ground inter alia that the petitioner was not 'an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of S. 2 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as he was engaged in doing cloth business as a partner with his brothers. The heard the election petition found that the petitioner was a partner in a Firm which still exists and carries on cloth business. For this conclusion certain circumstances apart from oral testimony have been relied upon. Petitioner's statement that he was a partner in a Firm which was engaged in cloth business has also been taken into consideration. On this finding, it has been held that the petitioner was not entitled to contest the election as an agriculturist. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the definition of the term 'agriculturist' contained in S. 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam, the petitioner should have been held to be an agriculturist. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it shall be useful to quote the definition of the term 'agriculturist' contained in S. 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam. It is as follows :-2 (b) "agriculturist" means a person whose source of livelihood is wholly dependent on agricultural produce and who cultivates land on one's own accounts : (I) by One's own labour; or (ii) by the labour of the either spouse or (iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of One's family referred to in sub-cl. (ii) above by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not as crop share. In view of this definition the person shall be an 'agriculturist' for the purpose of the Adhiniyam only when : (1) his source of livelihood is wholly dependent on agricultural produce and (2) he cultivates land on one's own account in the manner specified in three subclauses of cl. (b ). In view of this definition the person shall be an 'agriculturist' for the purpose of the Adhiniyam only when : (1) his source of livelihood is wholly dependent on agricultural produce and (2) he cultivates land on one's own account in the manner specified in three subclauses of cl. (b ). A trader, commission agent, processor, broker, weighman or hammal has been expressly excluded from the term 'agriculturist' within this definition and therefore, includes only such persons who are wholly dependent on agricultural produce and who are themselves engaged in cultivation of their land. The stress seems to be on the complete dependence on agricultural produce and who are themselves engaged in cultivation of their land. The stress seems to be on the complete dependence of livelihood on agriculture. If source of livelihood of a person is dependent on agricultural produce as also on some other profession or business or there is any other source of livelihood of a person, he cannot be said to be an agriculturist as defined under the Adhiniyam. In this there appears to be a significant departure from the original definition of the term, according to which, an agriculturists would mean a person whose main source of livelihood is dependent on growth of agricultural produce or growth of agricultural production. In the earlier definition there was a scope for treating as agriculturist even such persons who had additional source of livelihood apart from agricultural produce as main source of livelihood. The definition as it now stands does not permit of such construction and the departure by substituting the words "whose source of livelihood is wholly dependent on agricultural produce" for the words "whose main source of livelihood is dependent on production" is significant. If, therefore, a person's source of livelihood is dependent on some other activity besides agricultural produce, it will be difficult to hold him an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of the terms as defined in S. 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam. ( 3 ) WE are not impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word 'wholly' occurring in the main clause of definition should be ignored in view of the subsequent clauses expressing the intention of the legislature that there should be representation by persons engaged in agriculture and capable of promoting agriculture. ( 3 ) WE are not impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word 'wholly' occurring in the main clause of definition should be ignored in view of the subsequent clauses expressing the intention of the legislature that there should be representation by persons engaged in agriculture and capable of promoting agriculture. Learned counsel submitted that the literal meaning will defeat the object of the Adhiniyam. In our opinion there is no room for such a construction. It is now well settled that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i. e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. In Emperor v. Benoarilal Sharma, AIR 1945 PC 48 Viscount Simonds, L. C. said "again and again this Board has insisted that in construing enacted words we are not concerned with the policy involved or with the results, injurious or otherwise which may follow from giving effect to the language used". In Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh AIR 1954 SC 749 S. R. Das, J. observed. "the spirit of the law may well be an elusive and unsafe guide and the supposed spirit can certainly not be given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the Sections of the Act". The rule is that after construing the words if the conclusion is that they can bear only one meaning, the duty is to give effect to that meaning. It is also settled rule of construction that while on one hand it is not permissible to add words or to fill any gap or lacuna, efforts on the other hand should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by legislature. Patanjali Shastry, C. J. in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda, Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 at P. 377 said to brush aside words in a statute as being inappropriate surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute (Sic ). The legislature is not supposed to waste words or to say just anything in vain. A construction which attributes redundancy to legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. Such is the rule laid down in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Asstt. Commr. Sales Tax AIR 1964 SC 766 . The legislature is not supposed to waste words or to say just anything in vain. A construction which attributes redundancy to legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. Such is the rule laid down in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Asstt. Commr. Sales Tax AIR 1964 SC 766 . ( 4 ) IN the instant case, no compelling reason was assigned to permit this court to exclude the word 'wholly' occurring in the definition of the term 'agriculturist'. On the other hand, as we have pointed out above this term has been inserted by an amendment and presumably deliberately and, therefore, full effect must be given to its meaning. ( 5 ) NOTHING also turns upon the submission made by Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, that if a small farmer is to make some income from other sources to supplement his agricultural income he shall have to be excluded from this definition if effect is given to the word 'wholly' occurring in the definition of the term 'agriculturist'. He also submitted that persons who save income from agriculture and invest those savings elsewhere and make income shall also have to be excluded. In our opinion much will depend upon the circumstances and facts of a given case and from facts it has to be ascertained whether the person's source of livelihood is completely dependent upon agricultural produce. The inference shall certainly depend upon the circumstances of a given case. We are further of the opinion that term 'agriculturist' as defined in S. 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam is open only to one meaning as we have shown and, therefore, hardship or inconvenience or surprising results, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has formulated, may be no consideration for refusing to give that meaning. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it will not be possible to omit the word 'wholly' occurring in the definition of the term 'agriculturist' in S. 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam while construing its meaning. ( 6 ) IT was also urged that the definition of the term 'agriculturist' as it now stands after the amendment of the original definition is misleading for it may include even those who are engaged in trade connected with agriculture. The argument is wholly misconceived. ( 6 ) IT was also urged that the definition of the term 'agriculturist' as it now stands after the amendment of the original definition is misleading for it may include even those who are engaged in trade connected with agriculture. The argument is wholly misconceived. A plain reading of the definition of the term 'agriculturist' contained in S. 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam itself would indicate that to be an agriculturist a person's source of livelihood should be wholly dependent on agricultural produce and in addition he must cultivate the land on his own account. The term expressly excludes trader, commission agent, processor, broker, weighman or hammal of agricultural produce although such trader, commission agent, processor, broker, weighman or hammal may also be engaged in production of agricultural produce. It can thus be plainly seen that persons engaged in trade connected with agricultural produce although engaged in production of agricultural produce are not 'agriculturist'. This contention, therefore, is rejected. ( 7 ) THE Additional Collector deciding this dispute has, in the present case, found as a fact that the petitioner is a partner of a Firm which is engaged in doing cloth business. Return filed by the partnership Firm under the Sales Tax Act shows that the firm did have a considerable turnover. It has been found that the petitioner's source of livelihood is not wholly dependent upon agricultural produce. On these findings the petitioner has rightly been found not to be an agriculturist and his election has rightly been set aside. ( 8 ) THE petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .