JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the H.P. State Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is directed against the judgment dated 3.12.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he held as follows:- "The up-shot of the above discussion is that: (i) the State has failed to constitute any Advisory Committee for Jubbal Forest Division as per the provisions of the H.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982; (ii) the notification dated 6.2.2001 stood superseded by the notification dated 29.5.2001; (iii) the notification dated 6.2.2001 could not be reflected in the agreement dated 5.11.2001 once it stood superseded by the notification dated 29.5.2001; (iv) since no Advisory Committee had been constituted for Jubbal Forest Division, the petitioners are entitled to get the price of their forest produce as per the economic system, the detail of which had been furnished by respondent No. 3 along with the affidavit dated 24th September, 2007; (v) the petitioners are held entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 10,17,656/- over and above the amount which had already been paid to them; and (vi) the petitioners are held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the additional amount which is to be paid by the respondent No. 3 within a period of four weeks from today. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The Annexure P-7 dated 27.2.2003 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,17,656.50 with interest @ 9% per annum over and above the amount which had already been paid to them. No order as to costs." 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for decision of the case are that the petitioners through their power of attorney applied to the Divisional Manager, Sawra for issuance of marking and demarcation order as their forest lands, which fell in Jhalta Forest Beat of Jubbal Forest Division, were available for felling under the 10 years felling programme in the year 1999-2000. Demarcation and marking was carried out and consequently felling order was issued in favour of the petitioners on 28.3.2000. 3. As per the provisions of the H.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act the private parties have been debarred from carrying out any trade in forest produce. The State has full control over such trade. 3. As per the provisions of the H.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act the private parties have been debarred from carrying out any trade in forest produce. The State has full control over such trade. Section 3 of the Act provides that the State Government for the purchase of and trade of any forest produce on its behalf may appoint one or more agents in respect of different divisions or all or any specified forest produce on such terms and conditions as may be laid by the Government from time to time. It is not disputed that as far as timber is concerned, that can only be sold through the Forest Corporation. The relevant provision of the Act is Section 7 which reads as under:- "Government to fix price in consultation with the Committee - The State Government shall after consultation with the Committee constituted under section 6, fix the price at which forest produce shall be purchased at various places by it or by any of its authorised officer or agent from the owner of the forest produce and shall publish the same in the Official Gazette or in such other manner as may be prescribed. The price so fixed shall remain in force upto the end of each financial year and shall not be altered during that financial year: Provided that if the Committee fails to tender advice by the 15th of February preceding the financial year, the State Government may proceed to fix the price without consultation of the Committee. Provided further that the State Government through its authorised officer or agent may purchase the forest produce till the constitution of the Committee at a price mutually agreed upon between the parties to the sale." 4. Under the provisions of the Act the State has framed the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Rules, 1982. These Rules laid down the procedure for fixing the sale price which is to be fixed in terms of Section 7 of the Act. The forest, in question, was a part of the Jubbal Forest Division. Jubbal Forest Division was abolished on 21.12.1999 and merged in the Rohru Forest Division. The owners of the forest produce entered into an agreement with the Forest Corporation on 5.11.2001. Clause 2 of the agreement reads as under:- "2. The forest, in question, was a part of the Jubbal Forest Division. Jubbal Forest Division was abolished on 21.12.1999 and merged in the Rohru Forest Division. The owners of the forest produce entered into an agreement with the Forest Corporation on 5.11.2001. Clause 2 of the agreement reads as under:- "2. that the Government of Himachal Pradesh has fixed the price of the trees in private ownership for the year 2000-2001 vide Notification No. Fts.B-F (6)-4/2000 dated 6.2.2001 and the same shall be accordingly payable by the second party to the first party The contents of the notification be read as part and parcel of this agreement." 5. The parties had, therefore, mutually consented that the sale price would be governed as per the notification dated 6.2.2001. Admittedly, the notification dated 6.2.2001 had in fact been superseded by a notification dated 29.5.2001. Therefore, on the date when the agreement was entered into between the parties the notification of 6.2.2001 had already been replaced by the notification dated 29.5.2001. 6. An affidavit of Shri S.P. Vasudeva, Director (South), Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd. is on record in which it is clearly stated that though the notification dated 6.2.2001 was replaced by the notification dated 29.5.2001 but the method/system of calculating the price of trees under both these notifications was identical. The learned Single Judge held that since the notification dated 6.2.2001 had been superseded, therefore, this clause in the agreement is meaningless. 7. We are unable to agree with this finding. When the parties enter into a contract they do so with open eyes. Both the parties were aware about the notification dated 6.2.2001, which admittedly is reflected in the agreement entered into between the parties. Even if a notification is rescinded or revoked there is nothing which prevents the parties to a contract from stating that they shall pay/accept the prices given in the rescinded notification. It is for the parties to decide what is the consideration of the contract. It is a contractual matter to be decided between the parties. Admittedly, the method of calculation in both the notifications is identical. If the method is identical then we see no reason why any of the parties should be permitted to wriggle out on the contract only on the ground that the notification stood superseded. It is a contractual matter to be decided between the parties. Admittedly, the method of calculation in both the notifications is identical. If the method is identical then we see no reason why any of the parties should be permitted to wriggle out on the contract only on the ground that the notification stood superseded. Merely because the notification has been rescinded does not mean that the consideration is illegal and the contract is void. 8. The case of both the parties is that the Committee had not fixed the price in terms of Section 7. The first proviso to Section 7 clearly lays down that in case the Committee fails to tender advice by the 15th of February preceding the financial year the State Government can proceed to fix a price without consulting the Committee. In this case no price was fixed, but assuming that the State Government had fixed a price then it is for the landowners to decide whether they want to sell at this price or not. Once they agreed to sell at the price fixed by the State Government they cannot later withdraw from their commitment and claim a higher price. The second proviso to Section 7 leaves no manner of doubt that in case the Committee has not fixed the price then the State Government can purchase the forest produce at the price mutually agreed to between the parties. 9. In this case the mutual agreement between the parties was to purchase the forest produce as per the price laid down in the notification dated 6.2.2001. There is nothing illegal in that and we see no reason why the parties should not be bound by this agreement. Therefore, we feel that the learned Single Judge gravelly erred in holding that since the notification dated 6.2.2001 had been superseded the petitioners should have been paid the cost of the forest produce according to the system known as sale linked price system. There is no reference to the sale linked price system anywhere in the writ petition and as per the affidavit of Shri S.P. Vasudeva, the economic system had not even been introduced in the year in question. 10. In any event the economic system i.e. the sale linked price system was never agreed to be the method for determining the price considered by the parties. 10. In any event the economic system i.e. the sale linked price system was never agreed to be the method for determining the price considered by the parties. The parties to the contract have to be governed by the contract. Sometime in a contract a party may make lot of money and sometime it may incur losses but the Court cannot introduce a term into the contract which was not there when entered into between the parties. 11. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 3rd September, 2007 directed the Forest Corporation to work out the amount payable as per this economic system. According to it the total timber was sold for Rs. 26,88,037/-. A total sum of Rs. 10,61,799/- was deducted on account of felling, conversion and carriage upto road, transportation to the depot, insurance charges, service taxes, etc. As per this system also only a sum of Rs. 4,86,757/- was payable to the petitioners. However, the learned Single Judge held as follows:- "The deducted amount of Rs. 10,61,799 is disproportionate on the face of it and it could be at the most half of the amount i.e. Rs. 5,30,899.50 paisa. Consequently the petitioners were at least to be paid a sum of Rs. 10,17,656.50/- over and above the amount which had already been released to the petitioners." 12. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could have come to this conclusion. The deducted amount of Rs. 10,61,799/- includes transportation expenses, insurance charges, felling and conversion charges, royalty, etc. The dispute, if any, could be with regard to handling charges, which were charged @ 18% after rebate. Even this cannot be said to be unreasonable. The Forest Corporation has to recover expenses and salaries paid to its employees. 18% as a gross profit cannot be said to be unreasonable because after working out salaries of its staff, etc. the net profit would be much less than 10%. If the learned Single Judge felt that the economic system should be followed then it should be followed wholly or not at all. If the economic system was to be followed then the expenses should have been permitted to be deducted and the learned Single Judge could not have reduced the expenses that too without any material or evidence before him to show that the expenses were uncalled for. 13. If the economic system was to be followed then the expenses should have been permitted to be deducted and the learned Single Judge could not have reduced the expenses that too without any material or evidence before him to show that the expenses were uncalled for. 13. In any event as held by us above, we are of the considered view that the petitioners could not get anything more than what was agreed to under the agreement and since both the notifications dated 6.2.2001 and 29.5.2001 contained an identical system of calculation of cost of forest produce the petitioners are not entitled to any other amount. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.