http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: KHADYA PEYA VIKARETE MALAK SANGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHIEF OFFICER, SANGLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1976

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  527            1977 SCR  (2) 139  1977 SCC  (1) 455

ACT:             Maharashtra  Prevention  of  Food  Adulteration   Rules,         1962--Appendix  (1).Items  1, 7 and  8--Scope  of--Hoteliers         selling  food to customers  visiting  them-If--manufacturers         If liable to pay fees both as manufacturers and retailers.

HEADNOTE:             Rule 2(d) of the Maharashtra Prevention of  Food   Adul-         teration   Rules.  1962 defines a manufacturer as  a  person         engaged  in manufacturing any article of food for  the  pur-         poses of trade.  Clause (e) defines a. "retail dealer" as  a         dealer  in any article of food other than  wholesale  dealer         and cl. (g) defines a "wholesale dealer" as a person engaged         in the business of sale or storage for sale or  distribution         of  any article of food, for the purposes of  resale.   Fees         payable by a wholesale dealer or manufacturer for the  grant         or  renewal of a licence are prescribed in item 1 and  those         payable by a retail dealer in items 7 and 8 of Appendix 1.             Members of the appellant  association, who are hoteliers         and   restaurant keepers prepare articles of food in a  part         of their respective premises and sell them to the  customers         visiting  them.   The respondent municipality  charged  from         members of the association licence fee both under item 1 and         items 7 and 8 of Appendix 1 on the ground that each of  them         is both a manufacturer and a retail dealer.  The appellant’s         suit  for declaration that the municipality had no right  to         charge two sets of fees from the members who are essentially         retail  dealers and for refund of excess amount realised  by         the  municipality  was dismissed by the  trial  court.   The         first  appellate court allowed the appellant’s  appeal:  but         the  High  Court on further appeal by the  municipality  re-         stored the order of the trial court.         Allowing the appeal to this Court.             HELD:  The High Court was in error in holding that   the         members  of the association were covered both by item  1  as         also by items 3 to 8 of Appendix 1. Members of the appellant         association are liable to pay licence fee under items 3 to 8         of Appendix (1) and not under item 1.[148 B-C]             1 (a) Item 1 took within its fold a wholesale dealer  or         manufacturer  or  both.   It does not mention  of  a  retail         dealer.  Before a trader falls within the purview of item  1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

       it  must be shown that he is either a wholesale dealer or  a         manufacturer  or  both.  Where the dominant  nature  of  the         trading  activity  is neither that of a manufacturer  nor  a         wholesale dealer but is a retail sale, item 1 would have  no         application.  The fact that the trader prepares the articles         for selling them to his customers would not make him  either         a wholesale dealer or manufacturer. [147H; 148 A-B]             (b)  The words ’wholesale dealer’ or  ’manufacturer’  in         item  1 will not apply to hoteliers  and  restaurant-keepers         whose  main  business  is to conduct retail  sale  of  their         articles  prepared  by  them in a part  of  their  premises.         [143G]             (c)  The word ’manufacturer’ as defined in r.  2(d)  had         been  used in the widest possible sense to include not  only         manufacture  through a laboratory process but also  prepara-         tion  of  an article of food.  However  liberally  the  word         ’manufacturer’ is construed, it will not include the trading         activity  of  persons  the dominant nature of  which  is  to         supply  articles  of food prepared or produced  by  them  to         their customers. [143E]         140             2(a) There is no force in the contention that unless the         members of the Association are licensed as manufacturers the         Food  Inspector  cannot enter for  inspection  any  premises         where  the articles are prepared.  The question of a  trader         obtaining  a  licence has nothing to do with  the  statutory         duties  of  a Food Inspector.  The Food Inspector  does  not         derive  his  powers from the rules regulating licence  of  a         trader, but his duties spring from the statutory provisions.         There is no provision in the rules which in any way prevents         or  interferes  with the discharge of his  duties.  [147C-E;         146C]             (b) Apart from the wide powers given to the Food Inspec-         tor  by the Statute, Rules framed by the Central  Government         confer  additional powers on the Food Inspector.  The  Maha-         rashtra Rules do not contain any provision which in any  way         runs  counter to either the Central Rules or the  Act.   The         rules merely contain certain additional provisions regarding         the  conditions of licence and additional duties to be  per-         formed by the Food Inspector. [147B]             (c) Even assuming that a particular State Government did         not frame any rules under the Act it cannot be said that the         Food  Inspector  would be absolutely  powerless  and  cannot         exercise   effective  control.  His  duties  and   functions         spring from the parent statute and are not in any way corre-         lated  to  the additional duties provided for in  the  rules         framed by the State Government. [147G]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.  1936.  of         1972.             Appeal  by  Special Leave from the  Judgment  and  Order         dated the 2nd and 3rd day of August, 1971 of the Bombay High         Court in Second Appeal No. 1064 of 1970.             V.M. Tarkunde, S.B. Wad, (Mrs.) J. Wad and AMiss)  Manek         Tarkunde for the Appellant.         D. V. Patel, S.C. Pratap and P.H. Parekh for Respondent  No.         1 M.N. Shroff for respondent No. 2.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             FAZAL ALl. J.  This appeal by special leave is  directed         against  the  judgment  of the High Court  of  Bombay  dated         August 2/3, 1971 by which the plaintiff’s suit for  declara-         tion and injunction has  been dismissed.   The plaintiff  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

       an  association  of hoteliers and restaurant  keepers  doing         business within the, local limits of Sangli Municipality  in         the  State  of Maharashtra.   Under the  provision  of   the         Prevention  of  Food  Adulteration  Act,  1954---hereinafter         referred to as ’the Act’--and the rules framed thereunder by         the  Maharashtra  Government the members  of  the  plaintiff         association were required to take a licence for the business         conducted  by  them. - The Municipality  insisted  that  the         members of the plaintiff--Association should pay two sets of         fees---one  under item 1 and another under items 3 to  8  of         Appendix  (1) to the Schedule. These fees were  demanded  by         the  Municipality on the ground that the members  were  both         manufacturers and retail dealers and were, therefore, liable         to  pay fees in both these capacities. The Appendix  (1)  to         the Schedule was a part of the rules framed by the Maharash-         tra Government under s. 24 of the Act. The plaintiff, howev-         er, contended that the members of the  plaintiff-Association         were  not  liable to pay two fees as they  were  essentially         retail dealers and would have to pay fees under items 3 to 8         of. the appendix because they could not be said to be either         wholesale dealers or manufacturers. The plaintiff  also         141         claimed a declaration that the Municipality had no right  to         charge  two fees from the plaintiff and also prayed. for  an         injunction  restraining  the  Municipality  from  doing  so.         There  was  a  prayer for refund of Rs.  3,990/-  being  the         excess  amount realised by the Municipality from the  plain-         tiff.    The  suit was resisted by the Municipality  on  the         ground  that under the rules framed by the Maharashtra  Gov-         ernment,  the Municipality was legally entitled to levy  two         sets  of  fees from the plaintiff as indicated  above.   The         suit  was  dismissed by the Trial court of the  Joint  Civil         Judge, Junior Division,  Sangli, who held that the plaintiff         was  not entitled to the declaration sought for and  neither         to,  the refund as the Municipality was fully  justified  in         realising  the  two  sets  of  fees  from  the    plaintiff.         Against this decision the plaintiff went up in appeal to the         Extra  Assistant  Judge, Sangli who by  his  judgment  dated         August 27, 1970 reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and         decreed the plaintiff’s suit holding that the plaintiff  was         entitled to the declaration sought for as the  Municipality.         was not entitled to realise  two sets of  fees under  Appen-         dix (1) referred to above.   The. learned Judge also  passed         a  decree   for  refund of Rs. 3,990/-  in  favour   of  the         plaintiff.    The   Sangli Municipality went  up  in  second         appeal to the High Court of Bombay which ultimately succeed-         ed  and the High Court, agreeing with the view taken by  the         Trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Thereafter  the         plaintiff  obtained special leave from this Court and  hence         this appeal.             As seen above, the facts of this case .lie within a very         narrow compass and the point involved is a pure question  of         law which depends upon the interpretation of certain  provi-         sions  of  the  Act and the Rules made  by  the  Maharashtra         Government. Before, however, analysing the provisions of the         Act  and the Rules made thereunder it may be  necessary  to,         state   a  few admitted facts. It is not disputed  that  the         appellant  is  an Association of  hoteliers  and  restaurant         keepers  who  are engaged in preparing  eatables  and  other         articles of food and selling the same to their customers. It         is also not disputed that by and large, the  members of  the         plaintiff-association prepare the articles in a part of  the         premises where the hotel or restaurant is situated and after         preparing  the eatables they sell the same to the  customers         visiting  those  places. There was some controversy  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

       question  as to the import and ambit of the  word  "manufac-         ture",  but counsel for the appellant did not dispute  seri-         ously,  and rightly, that for the purpose of this  case  the         preparation of the articles of food would be included within         the ambit of the term "manufacture". In these circumstances,         therefore, we need not dilate on this point any further.             Mr.  V.M. Tarkunde, learned counsel for  the  appellant,         submitted that as. the main  business of the members  of the         plaintiff  association was retail sale of the articles  pre-         pared by them, they were essentially retail sellers and they         could  be charged fees only in this capacity.   It  is  thus         contended that the case of the appellant would clearly  fall         within  the ambit of items 3 to 8 of Appendix (I).   It  was         vehemently  argued that by no stretch of  imagination  could         the         142         association’s  members be charged fees as  manufacturers  or         wholesale  dealers  in view of the nature of  their  trading         activity.   The plaintiff also placed reliance on a communi-         cation  by the Director of Health to the  Municipal  Council         expressing his opinion that the Municipality was not  justi-         fied  in realising two sets of fees from the plain-.  tiff’s         members  and  that they were liable to pay fees  only  under         items 3 to 8 of Appendix (1).   This, however, was merely an         opinion of an Officer and would not carry any weight when we         are interpreting the statutory provisions of the Act and the         Rules.             On  the  other hand, Mr. D.V. Patel  appearing  for  the         respondent  Municipal  Council submitted  that  the  trading         activity of the appellant’s members and two separate capaci-         ties--one  as  manufactures and another as  retail  dealers,         and,  therefore,  the Municipality was entitled  to  realize         fees  on both these counts.   It was further argued  by  Mr.         Patel that if the Municipality   was not allowed to  realise         fees from the appellant’s members as manufacturers, the Food         Inspector  appointed  by  the  Municipality  would  have  no         jurisdiction to inspect the premises and check the  articles         manufactured by them for the purpose of sale.             We  have given our anxious and careful consideration  to         the arguments of both the parties and we are clearly of  the         opinion that the argument of learned counsel for the  appel-         lant  is well founded and must prevail.   To begin with, the         Rules  framed by the Maharashtra Government which were  pub-         lished in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated April 26,         1962, as amended upto date, define "manufacturer" thus:         "’manufacturer’ means a person engaged in manufacturing  any         article of food for the purpose of trade;"         "Retail dealer" is defined thus:         "’retail  dealer’  means a dealer in any  article  of  food,         other than a wholesale dealer;"         "Wholesale dealer" has been defined as the person engaged in         the business of sale or storage for sale or distribution  of         any article of food for the purposes of resale.         Appendix ( 1 ) runs thus:             "Schedule of Licence Fees chargeable under Section 24(2)         of Prevention of Food Adulteration  Act, 1954, for licensing         certain trades.         143         Appendix (1)         Fees for the grant or renewal of a licence.         [See rule 5(3) and (4A)]         Sr.                                  Fresh     Renewal         No.        Category                  Licence   of                                                        Licence         1             2                         3        4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

                                               Rs.      Rs.         1. Wholesale dealer or manufacturer            or both (other than those covered by            Appendix (2)                         30       20         2. Hawker or itinerant vendor or both    3        1         3. Retail dealer with annual turnover            upto Rs. 1,000                        3        1         4. Retail dealer with annual turnover            exceeding Rs.1,000 but not            exceeding Rs. 5,000                   5        2         5. Retail dealer with annual turnover            exceeding  5,000 but not            exceeding Rs. 10,000                 10        3         6. Retail dealer with annual turnover            exceeding Rs.10,000 but not            exceeding Rs.15,000                  15        5         7. Retail dealer with annual turnover            exceeding  Rs.15,000 but not            exceeding Rs. 25,000                 20       10         8. Retail dealer with annual turnover            exceeding Rs.25,000                  25       15         There cannot be the slightest doubt that the. word "manufac-         turer"  as defined in el. (d) of r. 2 had been used  in  the         widest   possible sense so as to, include not only  manufac-         ture through a laboratory process but also preparation of an         article  of  food.   In our opinion, however  liberally  the         word  "manufacture" may  be  construed,  it  will   not  in-         clude  the trading activity of persons, the dominant  nature         of which is to supply articles of food prepared or  produced         by them to their customers.   In other words, where the bulk         of food articles sold by the restaurant-keepers are prepared         by   them in  what may  be reasonably called a part  of  the         premises of the restaurant where the articles are sold,  the         preparation  of manufacture of those articles is  incidental         or ancillary to the retail sale, the dominant purpose of the         trading  activity  being sale of food  articles  by  retail.         We, therefore, think that the words. "wholesale dealer"   or         "manufacturer"  in item 1 of Appendix (1) will not apply  to         hoteliers  and restaurant-keepers whose main business is  to         conduct  retail sale of their articles prepared by  them  in         what may be termed a part of the same premises.             It  was, however, argued by Mr. Patel that if this  view         is taken, it would debar the Food Inspector from  inspecting         the  premises  where the articles of food are  prepared  and         checking  the same inasmuch as under the conditions  of  the         licence,  the Food Inspector his to maintain certain  stand-         ards  and  norms and-comply with certain conditions  in  the         process  of  preparation of the articles. We  are,  however,         unable  to  find any provision in the Act which in  any  way         prevents  the Food Inspector from making routine  inspection         and cheek of persons whe-         144         ther licensed or not.   This will be clear from an  analysis         of  the  various provisions of the Act which  we  shah  show         presently.   It seems to us that the Food Inspector being  a         creature of  the  parent statute, namely, the Prevention  of         Food  Adulteration Act, 1954 being referred to as ’the  Act’         has  got an independent statutory status, whose  duties  and         functions are defined by the Act itself.  The powers of  the         Food  Inspector are derived from and flow from  the  statute         itself. It is a different matter that under the Rules framed         by  the  Government  of a State the food  Inspector  may  be         entrusted  with certain additional duties but that does  not         take away the statutory powers possessed by the Food Inspec-         tor.   To begin with, s. 2(xi) of the Act defines "premises"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

       thus:            "’premises’  include any shop, stall, or place where  any         article of food is sold or manufactured or stored for sale;"         A  perusal of this definition would manifestly  reveal  that         "premises"  include any place where any article of  food  is         sold or manufactured or stored irrespective of the  question         whether  the manufacturer or the seller is licensed or  not.         The word "premises" does not contain any limitation so as to         confine  it  only  to those  premises  which  are  licensed.         Section  7 of ,the Act contains an express prohibition  pre-         venting any person from manufacture or sale of any  adulter-         ated article of food.         The relevant provision of s. 7 runs thus:               "No  person  shall  himself or by any  person  on  his         behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute--                       (i) any adulterated food;                       (ii) any misbranded food;                       (iii)  any  article of food for  the  sale  of                       which  a  licence is  prescribed,   except  in                       accordance    with   the  conditions  of   the                       licence;                       (iv)  any   article  of  food  the   sale   of                       which  is                            for  the time  being  prohibited  by  the                       Food                            (Health  Authority   in the interest   of                       public                            health;                        (v)  any article of food in contravention  of                       any  other       provision of this Act  or  of                       any rule made thereunder, or                       (vi) any adulterant."             This provision also does not contain any restriction  of         limitation  and  takes within its fold  any  person  whether         licensed or not who manufactures, stores or sells any  adul-         terated food.   Clause (iii) of s. 7 no doubt makes sale  of         any article of food without a licence an offence but  clause         (i) is independent of clause (iii).  Clause  (iv)         145         of  s. 7 authorises the Food (Health) Authority to  prohibit         the  sale of any article of food in the interest  of  public         health.   Section 9 of the Act is the provision for appoint-         ment of Food Inspectors and may be extracted thus:                       "9.   Food   Inspectors.--(1)   The    Central                       Government  or  the State Government  may,  by                       notification    in  the    Official   Gazette,                       appoint such persons as it thinks fit,  having                       the  prescribed   qualifications  to  be  Food                       Inspectors  for  such local areas  as  may  be                       assigned to them  by the Central Government or                       the State Government, as the case may be:                             Provided  that  no person  who  has  any                       financial interest in the manufacture,  import                       or  sale  of  any article  of  food  shall  be                       appointed  to be a food inspector  under  this                       section.                             (2)   Every  Food  Inspector  shall   be                       deemed  to  be  a public  servant  within  the                       meaning  of   Section 21 of the  Indian  Penal                       Code and shall be officially  subordinate  to.                       such  authority as the Government   appointing                       him  may specify in this behalf."         Section 10 of the Act contains the powers, duties and  func-         tions of the Food Inspectors.  The relevant portion of  this         statutory provision may be extracted thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

                     "10. Powers of Food Inspectors.--                       (1 ) A food inspector shah have power-                       (a)  to  take samples of any article  of  food                       from--                       (i) any person selling such article;                       (ii)  any  person  who. is in  the  course  of                       conveying, delivering or preparing to  deliver                       such article to a purchaser or consignee;                           (2)  Any  food  inspector  may  enter  and                       inspect any place where any article of food is                       manufactured,  or stored for sate,  or  stored                       for  the manufacture of any other  article  of                       food  for  sale, or exposed or  exhibited  for                       sale  or where any adulterant is  manufactured                       or  kept, and take samples of such article  of                       food or adulterant for analysis;                             (4)  If  any article intended  for  food                       appears   to   any  food   inspector   to   be                       adulterated  or mis-branded, he may seize  and                       carry away or keep in the safe custody of  the                       vendor  such article in order that it  may  be                       dealt  with  as hereinafter  provided  and  he                       shall,  in either case, take a sample of  such                       article  and submit the same for  analysis  to                       public analyst;                       11--1458SCI/76         146         It  would be seen that sub-ss. (2) and (4) of s. 10  clearly         empower the Food Inspector without any restriction or  limi-         tation  to enter and inspect any place where any article  of         food  is  manufactured, or stored for sale,  or  exposed  or         exhibited  for sale and inspect the article for the  purpose         of  finding out whether or not the article  is  adulterated.         Sub-section (4) of s. 10 empowers the Food Inspector even to         seize  any adulterated or misbranded article and carry  away         the  same  and keep it ’in safe custody. It  is,  therefore,         clear  whether  an activity is licensed or  not,  the  place         where  the activity is carried on is always subject  to  in-         spection  by the Food Inspector under the provisions  of  s.         10.  Section 16(1) clauses (c) and (d) particularly  provide         for  penalties and punishment for any person who prevents  a         Food Inspector either from taking a sample or from  exercis-         ing any power conferred on him by the Act.  Thus it is plain         that the question of a trader obtaining a licence or not has         absolutely  nothing to do with the statutory duties which  a         Food  Inspector has to perform and any person whether he  is         licensed  or not would be liable to penalties under the  Act         if he tries to prevent or interfere in the due discharge  of         the  duties by the Food Inspector. Section 23 of the Act  is         the provision which empowers the Central Government to  make         rules  in   order  to  carry  out the  provisions   of   the         Act.   Clause (c) of  s. 16(1)  provides  for  laying   down         special   provisions  for imposing  rigorous  control   over         the  production,   distribution and  sale  of  any   article         and   clause  (g)  authorises  the  Central  Government   to         define   the  conditions  of  sale  or  conditions  for  li-         cence  of sale  of  any article of food in the  interest  of         public  State  Government to make rules for the  purpose  of         giving  effect to the provisions of the Act.  Clause (a)  of         sub-s. (2) of s. 24 empowers the State Government to  define         the  powers and duties of the Food (Health) Authority.   The         section  also contains provisions for levy of a fee.  It  is         under this provision that the Maharashtra Rules were made by         the Government.  The Central Rules,  namely, the  Prevention         of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed under s. 23 of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

       Act  also contain provisions defining the duties of  a  Food         Inspector.   The relevant part of r. 9 of the Central  Rules         may be extracted thus:                             "9. Duties of Food Inspector.--It  shall                       be the duty of the food inspector                             (a)  to inspect as frequently as may  be                       prescribed  by the Food (Health) Authority  or                       the   local   authority   all   establishments                       licensed for the manufacture, storage or  sale                       of an article of food within the area assigned                       to him;                             (f)   to   make   such   enquiries   and                       inspections as may be necessary to detect  the                       manufacture,  storage or sale of  articles  of                       food  in  contravention of the  Act  or  rules                       framed thereunder;                             (h)  when  so authorised by  the  health                       officer, having jurisdiction in the local area                       concerned  or the Food (Health) Authority,  to                       detain imported packages which he has reason                       147                       to suspect contain food, the import or sale of                       which is prohibited;         Thus  it is clear that apart from the wide powers  given  to         the  Food Inspector by the statute itself, even the  Central         Rules  framed  by the Central Government  confer  additional         powers on the Food Inspector. The Maharashtra Rules referred         to above do not contain any provision which in any way  runs         counter  to either the Central Rules framed by  the  Central         Government  or the provisions of the Act. The  rules  merely         contain  certain additional provisions regarding the  condi-         tions  of licence and certain other additional duties to  be         performed by the Food Inspectors.             Thus  an  analysis  of these  provisions  would  plainly         reveal  that the Food inspector does not derive  his  powers         from  the  Rules  regulating licence of a  trader,  but  the         fountain  of his authority flows from the, statutory  provi-         sions  itself.  There is no provision in the Rules which  in         any  way  prevents or interferes with the discharge  of  the         duties of a Food Inspector.  The power to inspect and  check         is  a  plenary power which has been conferred  on  the  Food         Inspector  by  the statute itself and no rule  made  by  the         Government  can  ever interfere with this power.   In  these         circumstances,  it is difficult to accede to the  contention         of   Mr.  Patel that unless the members  of  the  plaintiff-         association are licensed as manufacturers also, it will  not         be possible for the Food Inspector to inspect and check  the         premises  where  the  articles are prepared. The  Act  is  a         social piece of legislation meant to control and curb  adul-         teration  of articles of food and being in the  interest  of         public health it has to be liberally construed and no  limi-         tations can be inferred on the powers of the Food  Inspector         whose primary duty is to see that the ’adulterated  articles         are  neither manufactured, nor stored, nor sold.  For  these         reasons, therefore, the main contention of Mr. Patel on this         score is overruled.             The  contention of counsel for the respondent  regarding         powers  of  the Food Inspector may be  tested  from  another         angle  of  vision on the touchstone  of  practical  reality.         Suppose  a  particular State Government does not  choose  to         frame  any Rules at all under the provisions of  the  parent         Act  (the  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act), can  it  be         argued  with any show of force that in such cases  the  Food         Inspector  would  become  absolutely  powerless  and  wholly         ineffective  The answer must be in the negative, because  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

       is  manifest that the duties and functions of the  Food  In-         spector  spring from the parent statute and are not  in  any         way co-related to the additional duties provided for in  the         Rules  which  may be framed by the State  Government.   Thus         even  from this point of view, the argument put  forward  by         the respondent fails.             Coming now to. the Appendix (1),itself, it would  appear         that item 1 and items 3 to 8 postulate two different contin-         gencies.   Item 1 takes within its fold wholesale dealer  or         manufacturer or both. There is no mention of a retail dealer         in this item. Thus before a trader falls within the  purview         of  item  1  of Appendix (1), it must be shown  that  he  is         either  a  wholesale dealer or a manufacturer or  both.   We         have  already pointed out that where the dominant nature  of         the trading activity of a         148         person is neither that of a manufacturer nor as a  wholesale         dealer, but he is engaged in  retail  sale’,  item 1   would         have no application. The mere fact that the trader  prepares         the  articles  for the purpose of selling the  same  to  his         customers would not make him either a wholesale dealer or  a         manufacturer.   In the first place, the appellant’s  members         cannot be wholesale dealers because there is nothing to show         that  they deal in articles for the purpose of  re-sale.  On         the other hand, the nature of their trading activity is  one         of  retail  sale.  In these circumstances the  case  of  the         appellant clearly falls within items 3 to 8 of Appendix (1).         The  High Court was, therefore, in error in taking the  view         that the case of the appellant was covered both by item 1 as         also  items 3 to 8 of Appendix (1) and was,  therefore,  not         justified  in reversing the judgment of the Extra  Assistant         Judge.             On a consideration, therefore, of the facts and  circum-         stances  of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that  in         the  instant case the members of  plaintiff-association  who         are  mostly  restaurant-keepers conducting the  business  of         retail sale, the preparation of the articles being merely an         ancillary activity, are liable to pay .the licence fee under         items  3  to 8 of Appendix (1) and not under item 1  of  the         Appendix (1) to the Schedule.  The plaintiff is,  therefore,         entitled to the declaration sought for and is also  entitled         to the refund of Rs. 3,990/-.             We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment         of  the High Court, decree the plaintiff’s suit and  restore         the  judgment and decree of the Extra Assistant  Judge.   In         the  peculiar circumstances of this case, there will  be  no         order as to costs.         P.B.R.                                                Appeal         allowed.         149