Briefly explain the 'Purposive Rule of Interpretation' under the General Clauses Act, 1987.

In Halsbury's Laws of England, it is stated: "Parliament intends that an enactment shall remedy a particular mischief and it is therefore presumed that Parliament intends that the court, when considering, in relation to the facts of the instant case, which of the opposing constructions of the enactment corresponds to its legal meaning, should find a construction which applies the remedy provided by it in such a way as to suppress that mischief." The doctrine originates in Heydon's case where the Barons of the Exchequer resolved that for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered: what was the common law before the making of the Act; what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide; what remedy Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth; and the true reason of the remedy and the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall - suppress the mischief and advance the remedy; and - suppress subtle inventions and evasions for the continuance of the mischief pro private-commode (for private benefit); and add force and life to the cure and remedy according to the true intent of the makers of the Act pro bono publico (for the public good).