Judgment ( 1. ) R.S. Garg, Acting Chief Justice. :-The appellants of different appeals being aggrieved by order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2407/2009 {M/s.Jai Baba Devpuri Warehouse, Morena Versus State of M.P.and Others}, Writ Petition No.715/2009 {Balaji Warehouse, Sheopur Versus State of M.P.and Others}, Writ Petition No.716/2009 . {Jeevan Warehouse, Sheopur Versus State of M.P.and Others}, Writ Petition No.948/2009 {M/s. Sadana Warehouse and Another Versus State of M.P.and Others}, Writ Petition No.5057/ 2007 {M/s.O.P.Warehouse, Nagda Versus State of M.P.and Others}, Writ Petition No.5058/2007 {M/s.Agrawal Warehouse Nagda Sheopur Versus State of M.P.and Others}. Writ Petition No.5035/2007 {M/s.S.K. Warehouse, Nagda Sheopur Versus State of M.P.and Others} and Writ Petition No.5059/2007 {M/s.Madhuvan Warehouse, Nagda Sheopur Versus State of M.P.and Others} have filed these appeals under Section 2 {1} of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya {Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal} Adhmiyam,2005 with a submission that the learned Single Judge was absolutely unjustified in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner/petitioners had obtained license under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Warehouse Act, 1947 {hereinafter referred to as Act of 1947}, they were not required to obtain another license under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 {hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam 1972} and has also not appreciated that the two Acts operate in different fields and as the objects and. reasons of the said Acts are different, the petitioner/petitioners could not be compelled by the authorities of respondent No. 3 to obtain a license. ( 2. ) Short facts taken from Writ Petition No.2407/2009 {M/s.Jai Baba Devpuri Warehouse, Morena Versus State .of M.P.and Others} are that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, being aggrieved by the notice dated 18th/19th May 2009 where under the petitioner was required to obtain a license under the Adhiniyam1972 came to the Court with a submission that having obtained a license under the Act of 1947, the petitioner was not required to obtain yet another license. ( 3. ( 3. ) The petitioner submitted that in response to the notice dated 18th/19th May 2009, he had sent a reply but he was required to come to this Court because the respondents No. 2and3 were extending discriminatory treatment; on one side, they had exempted the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation from the necessity of obtaining a license under the Adhiniyam1972 though the said Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation is also in the same business. It is. submitted that the respondents under the law had no authority to ask the petitioner/petitioners to obtain the license. ( 4. ) The respondent/State, Mandi Board and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena contending contrary to the submissions made in the writ petition submitted their reply pleading inter alia that Section 31 provides that a warehouseman is required to obtain a license in accordance with the provisions of the Act; Rules and the bye-laws made under the Act and, therefore, the warehouseman would be obliged to obtain a license under Section32{l} of the Adhiniyam1972. It was also submitted by them that the Madhya Pradesh Warehouse and Logistic Corporation had been exempted by the Director of Mandi Board, therefore, case of the petitioner/petitioners could not be compared with the especially protected authority/corporation. ( 5. ) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that as Section 31 and Section 32 of Adhiniyam1972 were mandatory in their operation, the petitioners were obliged to obtain license for carrying on business or for operating in the market area. The learned Single Judge also observed that any exemption later issued by the Director of Mandi Board would not provide any protection or solace to the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation from applicability of provisions of the Adhiniyam1972. ( 6. ) After recording the concession made by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the periodical returns were not required to be furnished but the petitioner was required to furnish necessary information as contained in Form 12-D. The petition was disposed of with directions as contained in Paragraph 14, which reads as under:- "{a} The petitioners shall obtain a license from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, concerned by submitting an appropriate application as per. the provisions of the Adhiniyam1972 and also keeping in view the. the provisions of the Adhiniyam1972 and also keeping in view the. bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the competent authority of the Mandi Samiti shall process the application for grant of license so preferred by the petitioners individually and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such an application. {b} The petitioners as already accepted before this Court shall submit the specific information in Form 12-D enclosed alongwith AnnexureR/1, i.e. 20-8{a}-of the bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti, Morena. {c} The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners for the period which is already over for not obtaining the license as per the provisions of the Adhiniyam1972 and keeping in view the provisions of the Adhiniyam1972 and bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti." ( 7. ) Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the appellants referring to the preamble of the Act of 1947 submitted that as the objects and reasons and the preamble of the two Acts are different, the same are required to be considered in their true perspective. ( 8. ) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the two Acts are not mutually exclusive but are to be read in conjunction with each other. ( 9. ) For proper appreciation of the arguments, we will have to refer to the preamble and the statement of objects and reasons of the two Acts. For the Act of 1947, it is said that it is an Act to encourage the establishment of warehouses for storing agricultural produce and to make provision for their proper supervision and control. Adhiniyam1972 provides that it is an Act to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment and proper administration of markets of agricultural produce in the State of Madhya Pradesh. ( 10. ) The two Acts are totally different and they operate in different areas. The Act of 1947 clearly provides that it is an Act to encourage the establishment of warehouses for storing agricultural produce and to make provision for their proper supervision and control. ( 10. ) The two Acts are totally different and they operate in different areas. The Act of 1947 clearly provides that it is an Act to encourage the establishment of warehouses for storing agricultural produce and to make provision for their proper supervision and control. The objects and reasons for enactment of the Act of 1947 were to encourage the establishment of warehouses and the warehouses were to be established for storing agricultural produce and to make provision for their proper supervision and control. The warehouses if were to be established for storing agricultural produce and to make provision for their proper supervision and control then one cannot read in the said objects and reasons that the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Warehouse Act, 1947 was also to. deal with the establishment and proper administration of markets of agricultural produce and for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce. ( 11. ) True it is that in both the Acts the concern of the Government is in relation to the agricultural produce but if the two Acts operate in separate fields then one cannot lose sight of the fact that under the Act of 1947, the intention of the Government is to store agricultural produce and to make provision for their proper supervision and control. The Act of 1947 nowhere provides that it is an Act for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment and proper administration of markets of agricultural produce in the State of Madhya Pradesh. One Act controls the establishment of warehouses and it does not deal with the buying and selling of the agricultural produce while the other Act is for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce. If the two different Acts provide different facilities; one for storing and proper supervision and control and the other Act provides for better regulation of buying and selling of the agricultural produce then it cannot be argued that the Act of 1947 would protect the petitioner/petitioners from the clutches of Section 31 and Section 32 of the Act. ( 12. ) Assuming that instead of a warehouse somebody keeps the large amount of the agricultural produce anywhere else then he would not be entitled to claim any protection from the clutches of Adhiniyam1972. ( 12. ) Assuming that instead of a warehouse somebody keeps the large amount of the agricultural produce anywhere else then he would not be entitled to claim any protection from the clutches of Adhiniyam1972. The Act of 1947 simply provides that how the warehouses would be established and what would be the purpose of establishment of warehouses. The warehouses simply provide storing facility and, therefore, if storing facility is the main object in the Act of 1947 then one cannot say that buying and selling of the very same agricultural produce would not change the situation and would not colour the scenario differently. ( 13. ) A warehouse under the Act of 1947 means a building or protected enclosure which is used or may be used for the purpose of storing agricultural produce and a warehouseman means a person licensed as such under this Act to conduct a warehouse. A warehouse if is only a building or protected enclosure then that cannot control application of Adhiniyam1972 which even, for the sake of repetition, we would say is for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce. ( 14. ) Section 31 of Adhiniyam 1972 clearly provides that no person shall, in respect of any notified agricultural produce, operate in the market area as .................... warehouseman .................... except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Rules and bye-laws made thereunder. ( 15. ) On one side, the Act of 1947 provides for establishment of a warehouse but Section 31 provides that such a person would not be entitled to operate in the market area as a warehouseman except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Rules and the bye-laws made thereunder. ( 16. ) If the schemes of both the Acts are seen then one is for storing and protection while the other is for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce. Section 31 cannot be said to be in derogation of the Act of 1947 in fact it puts a bar against the activities of a warehouseman in the market area. The validity of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 has already been upheld by a judgment of this Court, therefore, it cannot now be argued that the provisions of Section 31 would not apply. ( 17. The validity of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 has already been upheld by a judgment of this Court, therefore, it cannot now be argued that the provisions of Section 31 would not apply. ( 17. ) Learned senior counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon a Full Bench Judgment of. our own Court in the matter of CC1998 {1} JLJ 203 to submit that if the particular Acts operate in different fields then due respect should be given to the intention of such Acts. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as under:- "10. We have carefully examined the two conflicting views expressed by the two Division Benches and have also considered the submissions made on the interpretation of Article 182 {2} of the Limitation Act. The question requires interpretation of the relevant entry in Clauses {2} and {5} of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Looking at the. relevant entry contained in Clause {2} of Article 182, in our opinion, we find that the various clauses in Article 182 cannot be read and construed in isolation from each other. All the entries in Clauses {1} to {7} and the Explanation therein have to be read in continuation and have to be construed in conjunction with each other. The normal rule of interpretation is that general words in a statute must receive general construction unless there is something in the Act itself such as the subject matter with which the Act is dealing or the context in which the said words are used to show the intention of the Legislature that they must be given a restrictive or wider meaning. It is quite often that the object or the subject matter or the collocation or speaking briefly the context has the effect of restricting the normal wide meaning of general words, "for words and particularly general words cannot be read in isolation, their colour and content are derived from their context". It is recognized principle of construction, observed Kapur, J in Express Mills Versus Municipal Committee, Wardha { AIR 1958 SC 341 }, that general words and phrases, however wide and comprehensive they may be in their literal sense, must usually be construed as being limited to the actual objects of the Act. It is recognized principle of construction, observed Kapur, J in Express Mills Versus Municipal Committee, Wardha { AIR 1958 SC 341 }, that general words and phrases, however wide and comprehensive they may be in their literal sense, must usually be construed as being limited to the actual objects of the Act. It may in the same context be said that it is a sound rule of construction to confine the general provisions of a statute to the statute itself. "One of the safest guides to the construction of sweeping general words which it is difficult to apply in their full literal sense" stated the Privy Council, "is to examine other words of like import in the same instrument and to see what limitations can be placed on them". {See : Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.Singh, Sixth Edition 1996, Pages 294 to 296}." ( 18. ) In the said matter, the question before the Court was that what shall be the legal interpretation of the Clauses {1} and {2} of Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The Court after dedicating its anxious consideration came to the conclusion that the two Clauses i.e. 182{1} and 182{2} operate indifferent fields. The Full Bench was of the opinion that a decree would become executable either from the date of the decree or in case where there has been an appeal, from the date of disposal of the appeal. We would derive some support from the said judgment when the said judgment says that if the provisions are to operate in different fields then the said fields should be considered separately. ( 19. ) In the present matter, both the Acts are operating in different fields as observed; one is in relation to establishment of the warehouses while the other Act is to provide for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce. It would not be proper to say that storing would not be different from buying and selling. One may store the things after buying the same or for the purposes of selling the same. Storing something in case of a warehouse would be for the benefit of the others but if the law requires that a warehouse is to be operated by a warehouseman only under a license then no wrong can be found in the scheme of Adhiniyam1972. ( 20. Storing something in case of a warehouse would be for the benefit of the others but if the law requires that a warehouse is to be operated by a warehouseman only under a license then no wrong can be found in the scheme of Adhiniyam1972. ( 20. ) In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the Mandi Samiti was entitled to issue a notice to the petitioner/petitioners to apply for a license under Section 32 {1} of Adhiniyam1972 so that they could legally operate and avoid the bar contained under Section 31 of Adhiniyam1972. Each of the petitioner shall be obliged to make an application for license within thirty days from today. If within thirty days, such an application is filed then the application would be processed by the Mandi Samiti and appropriate license in accordance with law shall be issued and no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner/petitioners. In case required applications are not filed within the afore-referred period then the State Government /Mandi Samiti would be entitled to take appropriate action against the defaulting petitioner/petitioners. ( 21. ) On merits, each of the appeal with the liberty aforesaid is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.