KHADYA PEYA VIKARETE MALAK SANGH versus THE CHIEF OFFICER, SANGLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 19-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.K. GOSWAMI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

139 
KHADYA PEYA VIKARETE MALAK SANGH 
v. 
THE CHIEF OFFICER, SANGLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. 
November 19, 1976 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. M. FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962-Appendix ( 1 )-
Items 1, 7 and 8-Scope of-Hoteliers selling food to customers visiting them-
lf-manufacturers-lf liable to pay fees both as manufacturers and retailers. 
Rule 2(d) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Rules. 
__, 1962 defines a manufacturer as a person engaged in manufacturing any article · 
of food for the purposes of trade. 
Clause ( e) defines & "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 a,rticle 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 a,nd 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 I and items 7 
and 8 of Appendix 1 on the ground tha,t 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 rea·lised 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 restored 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-CJ 
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 I 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 ret,,,il sale, item 
I 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 dw!er or 
manufacturer. [147H; 148 A-BJ 
(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] 
A. 
B 
c 
D· 
E 
F 
G 
( c) The word 'manufacturer' as defined in r. 2 ( d) had been used in the 
widest possible sense to include not only marmfacture through a laboratory 
process but also preparation of an article of food. 
However li@erally the word 
H 
'manufacturer' is construed, it will not include the trading activity of persop.s, 
the dominant nature of which is to supply articles of food prepared or produced 
by them to their qistomers. [143EJ 
.· 
. 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l 977] 2 s.c.R. 
A 
· 2(:1). There i~ no force in the contention that unless th@ members of the 
115soc~uon are hce~ed as manufacturers the Food Inspector cannot enter for 
mspectton ~Y preI?15es where th~ articles are prepared. 
The qUestion of a 
trader obt&m1ng a licence has nothing to do with the statutory duties of a Food 
Ins_pect~r. The Food Inspector does not derive his powers from the rules regu· 
Iatmg ~1cence of. a; t~er, but his duties spring from the statutory provisions. 
There is no prov1s1on m the rules which in any way prevenrs or interferes with 
the discharge of his duties. (147C-E; !46C] 
· 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(b) Apart from the wide powers given to the Food Inspector by the Statute, 
Rules framed by the Central Government confer additional PO\Ji.'ers on the Food 
Inspector. The ~laharashtra Rules do not contain a·ny provision \Vhich in any 
way runs counter to either the Central Rules or the Act. The ruleS~merely con-
tain certain additional provisio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.