ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals being MAT. No. 2183 of 2004 and MAT. No. 2377 of 2004 were heard analogously as both the appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 11th June, 2004 passed by ald. Judge of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 14945 (W) of 2003. By the judgment and order under appeal, the Id. Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and was pleased to set aside the order dated 9th December, 2002 issued by the District magistrate and Collectorate, Bankura granting licence in favour of the private parties. The order dated 25th July, 2002 passed by the appellate authority was also set aside. The detailed facts of this case are as follows: an advertisement issued by the Government of West Bengal was inserted in newspaper on 18th January, 2001 inviting application from companies formed or societies formed by unemployed youth for issuance of an excise licence for country spirit shop at various places including Chatra More in the district of bankura. Pursuant to such advertisement, the writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, claiming to be educated unemployed youth formed a partnership under the name and style of 'paul Enterprise' and applied in the prescribed form for issuance of licence of country spirit. Similarly the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the writ petition, and the appellants in MAT. No. 2183 of 2004, applied for grant of the said licence. Thereafter, a lottery was held by the Directorate of lottery, West Bengal and the position of the appellants in MAT. No. 2183 of 2004 was at the top of the panel and the writ petitioners were placed in the third position in the said panel. However, certain complaints were lodged regarding improper processing of the application for issue of licence at certain places in Bankura including the site at Chatra More. On such complaints being made, the District Magistrate and Collectorate, Bankura directed the Executive magistrate and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bankura to hold an enquiry and in fact an inquiry was held and report of the said enquiry was also considered by the Id. Judge of the Writ Court. The report, which was submitted and which concerns the present case, shows that both the appellants were served with a notice and hearing took place on 04. 01. 2002 in the office of the BDO, Joypur. Judge of the Writ Court. The report, which was submitted and which concerns the present case, shows that both the appellants were served with a notice and hearing took place on 04. 01. 2002 in the office of the BDO, Joypur. In the said hearing both the appellants were present and their statements were recorded. From their said statements it transpires that Rajib Chatterjee, one of the appellants lives with his brother Sanjib Chatterjee in a joint family. Sanjib is the owner of a shop called 'light House' at Gelia More and Rajib sells electrical goods in the said shop. In connection with the said shop Rajib showed the chalan evidencing deposit of profession tax. So far as Subhendu, the other appellant is concerned, he has admitted that he dealt in potato, til and paddy by way of seasonal business. Subhendu also admitted that he took a loan of Rs. 25,000/-for business from Chatra More Co-operative Bank and he could not repay the same till 04. 01. 02. Subhendu also admitted that his name has been registered with Chatra More Khudra Byabsayee Samity. In the report it has been commented that Subhendu was self-employed, at least partially, and the proposed site of country spirit shop was situated in the market place of Chatra more. But in the said report the Additional District Magistrate gave his views that the complaint against Rajib and Subhendu is not substantially established. The complaint against Rajib is that he is employed and that he has a shop under the name and style of Light House. But the document shows that elder brother Sanjib is owner of the shop. It was also stated in the report that subhendu had mentioned in his application form that he is engaged in some business which is seasonal in nature and he has taken a loan from the Co-operative Bank. ( 2 ) IN the report it has been stated that from those facts it cannot be said that the application form submitted by Rajib and Subhendu shouid be rejected. As such, on 9th December a licence was issued in favour of Rajib and Subhendu for retail country spirit and against the said order of grant of licence in favour of Rajib and Subhendu, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the excise Commissioner, West Bengal. As such, on 9th December a licence was issued in favour of Rajib and Subhendu for retail country spirit and against the said order of grant of licence in favour of Rajib and Subhendu, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the excise Commissioner, West Bengal. When the appeal was pending another writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court being Writ Petition No. 17812 (W) of 2003. Since the appeal was pending against the order for grant of licence aid. Judge, hearing the Writ Petition No. 17812 (W) 2003 did not interfere but made it clear and in our view rightly, by an order dated 28th February, 2003 that the licence, which has been granted on 9th December, 2002 for a limited period till 31stmarch 2002, shall not be renewed further than two weeks after the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. His Lordship disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to decide the said appeal expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of his Lordship's order and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant thereto, a final order was passed by the appellate authority namely the Excise Commissioner on 25th July, 2003 by dismissing the appeal. ( 3 ) BOTH these initial grant of licence and the said order passed in the appeal were challenged by the writ petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. In the background of these facts the learned Judge of the Writ Court, in the judgment under appeal, came to a conclusion that at least one of the appellant namely subhendu Chatterjee, has been in business and he was dealing in potato, paddy, til and tisi and was a member of Chatra More Khudra Byabsayee Samity. From those facts the Id. Judge came to the conclusion that a person who is a member of the Byabsayee Samity and obtains a loan from the Co-operative Bank for running a business cannot be called an unemployed youth. According to the Id. Judge a person who is sitting Idle is an unemployed youth. The Id. Judge also came to the conclusion that the authorities settling the licence are under an obligation to settle such licence in the manner prescribed in the advertisement and in the advertisement it is made clear that such settlement of licence has to be in favour of unemployed youth. The Id. The Id. Judge also came to the conclusion that the authorities settling the licence are under an obligation to settle such licence in the manner prescribed in the advertisement and in the advertisement it is made clear that such settlement of licence has to be in favour of unemployed youth. The Id. Judge further came to the conclusion that the term "unemployed youth" cannot be interpreted in an arbitrary or whimsical manner to confer undue advantage on certain ineligible persons. ( 4 ) THE Id. Judge has considered some judgments which were cited before his Lordship but since those judgments have not been cited before us, this court refrains from considering those judgments. The Id. Judge was of the opinion that the word 'unemployment' has not been defined in the relevant order nor the expression of 'unemployed youth' has been explained. As such, the Id. Judge placed reliance on Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition and the shorter Oxford English Dictionary in order to ascertain the meaning of the expression 'unemployment'. Relying on the meaning given in those books to the expression 'unemployment', the Id. Judge came to the conclusion that at least Subhendu Chatterjee cannot he said to be an unemployed youth and as such, was pleased to set aside the licence granted in favour of the respondent nos. . 7 and 8. Against the said judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Writ court both the respondent Nos. 7 and. 8 in the writ petition filed an appeal being mat. 2183 of 2004 and the State Government has also filed an appeal being mat. 2377 of 2004 and both the appeals are heard together. ( 5 ) THIS Court is unable to uphoid the judgment rendered by the Id. Judge of the Writ Court for the following reasons. ( 6 ) IN the advertisement in question the requirement relating to unemployed youth has been clearly stated. 2377 of 2004 and both the appeals are heard together. ( 5 ) THIS Court is unable to uphoid the judgment rendered by the Id. Judge of the Writ Court for the following reasons. ( 6 ) IN the advertisement in question the requirement relating to unemployed youth has been clearly stated. The relevant portion of the advertisement relating to the same is set out below : " 'unemployed youth' shall mean any person of or above the age of 21 years but not above 37 years, registered as unemployed in any Employment exchange in the State of West Bengal and certified to be unemployed by any of the authorities mentioned hereunder in whose jurisdiction such person resides:- a)Member of Parliament b) Member of Legislative Assembly c)Sabhadhipati of a Zilia Parishad (d) Sabhadhipati, Siliguri Mahakuma parishad; (e) Chairman, Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, f) Chief Executive officer of a notified area; (g) Mayor or Commissioner of a Municipal corporation; (h) Chairman of a Municipality : provided that an unemployed youth instead of furnishing certificate of unemployment from the authorities mentioned above may submit an affidavit in lieu of such certificate from a Magistrate or Notary Public : provided further that a firm or a society need not be registered at the time of submitting application in the prescribed form for new licence. " ( 7 ) FROM a perusal of the aforesaid requirement in the advertisement it is clear that 'unemployed youth' shall mean - a) a person above the age of 21 years but not above the age of 37 years, b) a person who is registered as unemployed in any Employment Exchange in the State of West Bengal and c)a person who is certified to be unemployed by any of the authorities mentioned in the said advertisement. ( 8 ) IN the instant case undisputedly the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the writ petition, and the appellant before us, satisfy all the three conditions. This is not disputed. What is disputed is that despite claiming themselves unemployed youth the respondents earn some amount by way of their engagement either in seasonal business or by way of working in the family business of one's brother. It cannot be disputed that these facts have been clearly stated by the appellants in their application for grant of licence and they have not suppressed these facts. It cannot be disputed that these facts have been clearly stated by the appellants in their application for grant of licence and they have not suppressed these facts. ( 9 ) IT cannot be assumed from the nature of the advertisement that by 'unemployed youth' the authorities have meant a person who shall be totally without any income in order to sustain himself. There is no basis for such assumption. In fact, in order to get; the licence the candidates will have to furnish an objection free site, normally such a site has to be obtained either by taking it on rent or by offering such a site which is part of one's property. Apart from' that such unemployed youths are supposed to show some financial strength by way of furnishing of bank balance and so on. It is not expected that a person who has no income even to sustain himself will be able to satisfy these requirements. ( 10 ) IN the instant case it may be noted that the appellants are earning some money in order to sustain themselves but it is nobody's case that they have got any permanent employment or they are serving in any institution as regularly paid employees. In fact the registration of persons' name in Employment exchange will show that the persons concerned have registered themselves as unemployed youth for an employment but have not got the employment. The same is true of the appellants also. It is not disputed by anybody that they are registered with the Employment Exchange. But even after such registration they are not getting any employment in order to sustain themselves. But they are doing some work may be by way of seasonal business or by working in family business which cannot be called an employment. Therefore on this ground alone the licence which has been granted to the appellants cannot be rejected. In this connection this Court is also constrained to observe that since the expression 'unemployed youth' has been explained in the advertisement with the help of expression 'mean', there is no scope for further interpreting the said expression 'unemployed youth' with the help of Black's Law Dictionary or an ordinary dictionary. ( 11 ) IT is well-settled that while interpreting a definition one has to keep in mind that the interpretation shouid not be repugnant to the context. ( 11 ) IT is well-settled that while interpreting a definition one has to keep in mind that the interpretation shouid not be repugnant to the context. In the instant case, in the context, in which the expression 'unemployed youth' has been used in the advertisement itself must be understood. As such, when something is defined in the context by a statement or statutory rule only such construction shouid be put on the words which is required by the context. Any construction which wouid defeat or likely to defeat the purpose. of the rule has to be ignored and cannot be accepted, (see the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. V. Muthu vs Angamuthu Ammal, reported in 1997 (2) SCC 53 and see the observations of the Id. Judges at para 11, page 58 of the report.) ( 12 ) IN the instant case, in the context of the Excise Act, the expression 'unemployed youth' has been clearly explained in the advertisement and it has not been explained to mean that the person must be without any income and without any engagement of any nature so as to sustain himself. Such a narrow interpretation cannot be put on the expression 'unemployed youth' when the word 'mean' has been used and the contour of of the expression of 'unemployed youth' has been indicated clearly in the advertisement itself. ( 13 ) NOW, coming to the question of interpretation, it is well-settled that when something is defined by the expression 'mean' it will be a hard and fast definition and the result is that one cannot give any other meaning to the word than that which is mentioned in the definition. These principles have been long settled by Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls In Re: The Agricultural Hoidings (England) Act, 1883, Gough vs. Gough reported in 1891 (2) Queen's Bench 665. In that judgment of the Court of Appeal the Id. Judges were considering the meaning of the expression 'landlord'. The Id. Master of Rolls heid that since the word 'landlord' has been defined by use of the expression 'mean' and not by the use of the expression 'include' it will be a hard and fast definition. ( 14 ) IN the instant case also the expression 'unemployed youth' has been explained in the advertisement by the expression 'mean'. The Id. Master of Rolls heid that since the word 'landlord' has been defined by use of the expression 'mean' and not by the use of the expression 'include' it will be a hard and fast definition. ( 14 ) IN the instant case also the expression 'unemployed youth' has been explained in the advertisement by the expression 'mean'. Following the same reasoning, this Court hoids that it wouid mean a person who satisfied those requirements, which are detailed in the advertisement. As discussed above, the appellants satisfy all those requirement. ( 15 ) THE aforesaid dictum of Lord Esher, Master of Rolls, has been followed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Land-Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour court, Chandigarh and Ors. , reported in 1990 (3) SCC 682 (See paragraph 72 at page 717 ). Subsequently, also the Supreme Court has followed the same in the case of P. Kasilingam Ors. vs. P. S. G. College of Technology Ors. , reported in air 1995 SC 1395 (See the observation of the Id. Judges in paragraph 19 and at page 1400 of the report.) ( 16 ) THE Id. Judge of the Supreme Court quoted the observation of Lord esher in extenso and approved the same. ( 17 ) IN view of such authoritative pronouncement of law on the subject it is difficult for this Court to accept the interpretation of 'unemployed youth' given by the learned Judge by relying on Black's Law Dictionary. The learned Judge possibly fell into an error by not hoiding that, here the expression 'unemployed youth' must receive a contextual interpretation namely it wouid mean a person who has not been substantially employed or has not been in any service even though lie is registered as an unemployed youth with the Employment Exchange and as has been so declared by the authorities and also must be within a certain age group. Apart from that there is no other requirement. If the person concerned earns some money for subsistence, he does not go out of the category of unemployed youth if he otherwise fulfils the prescribed conditions. Going by this reasoning, as we must, this Court cannot accept the interpretation given to 'unemployed youth' by the Id. Judge of the Writ Court. Apart from that there is no other requirement. If the person concerned earns some money for subsistence, he does not go out of the category of unemployed youth if he otherwise fulfils the prescribed conditions. Going by this reasoning, as we must, this Court cannot accept the interpretation given to 'unemployed youth' by the Id. Judge of the Writ Court. As such we feel constrained to take a different view and, set aside the judgment under appeal. ( 18 ) NO other question has been argued before us except the aforesaid question discussed above. As such both the appeals are allowed for the same reason discussed above. Since the appeals are allowed all interim orders stand vacated. ( 19 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 20 ) PRAYER for stay is considered and refused. ( 21 ) AS prayed for, xerox certified copy of the judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously. Appeals allowed.