ORDER The Petitioners Pyarasingh and Amarsingh are licensed hotel-keepers to whom licenses were granted by the Municipal Committee, Raipur, to run hotels and eating-houses on payment of a licence fee of Rs. 10 per year. Those licences are Annexures I and II. On 30th June 1957 the Municipal Committee passed a resolution which is to the following effect: Shri Motilal moved a resolution that this committee again approves the decision taken on the use of the Jhatka slaughter-house, vide Health sub-committee's resolution No. 6, dated 25-10-51 and the General Committee's resolution No. 1-L dated 24-11-51, as has been mentioned in Section 140 and 180/C/D/V/E and Section 121 of the Public Health Act. The act of hotel-keepers who, after slaughtering an animal, sell cooked meat, is included in trade. In future, they should not be allowed to slaughter an animal, without obtaining a licence from the Committee, as these people do not sell this meat at the place sanctioned by the Committee. Any person, on paying proper fee, can slaughter an animal in the slaughter-house, according to rules, for personal use, but he cannot sell meat. This resolution affected the business of these two Petitioners inasmuch as they used to take their goat and sheep to the slaughter-house for the purpose of getting them slaughtered by the Jhatka method, using the meat for their dishes served at their hotel. Previous to this, the Municipal Committee had passed a resolution on 1st December 1952, which is Annexure IV. It reads as follows: Shri Munnalal moved the following resolution for consideration of the Committee. That, at Jhatka slaughter-house, permission is granted to other persons also for their personal use to slaughter the sheep and he-goats in one stroke, besides the license-holders who sell Jhatka meat (meat obtained by killing an animal by one stroke). This Committee also announces that all the slaughter-houses within the jurisdiction of the Committee, are established and governed under Sections 140 and 141 of the Municipal Act. There are no other separate slaughter-houses to slaughter sheep and goats for personal use. In this connection, the order dated 20-8-52 of the President, Municipal Committee is confirmed. The Petitioners contend that permission to get goats and sheep slaughtered at the Jhatka slaughter-house was wrongly withheld by the Municipal Committee, Raipur, and that they were entitled to get goats and sheep slaughtered, by paying the necessary fee, for their personal use. In this connection, the order dated 20-8-52 of the President, Municipal Committee is confirmed. The Petitioners contend that permission to get goats and sheep slaughtered at the Jhatka slaughter-house was wrongly withheld by the Municipal Committee, Raipur, and that they were entitled to get goats and sheep slaughtered, by paying the necessary fee, for their personal use. According to the Municipal Committee, the meat was, not for personal use but for commercial use, and therefore these persons could not get goats and sheep slaughtered unless they had held a license for vending meat. The Petitioners had moved the Municipal Committee by an application on 15th July 1957 for permission, but their application was rejected by an order of the Market Inspector on the 24th July 1957: Annexures VII and VIII. The contention in this petition is that the Municipal Committee having thrown open the Jhatka slaughter-houses not only to the licensed meat vendors but also to the public for personal use could not prohibit the Petitioners from getting the goats and sheep slaughtered at the slaughter-house for use in their hotel. The Petitioners argue that the contention of the Municipal Committee that the meat thus obtained is sold is not correct because the meat is not sold raw but is made into a cooked dish, which is served to the lodgers and Ors. coming to the hotel for food. In other words, the contention of the Petitioners is that they are not vending meat but are running hotels and selling dressed and cooked meat. The dispute really comes to this whether the hotel-keepers are selling meat without a license or they are getting the goats and sheep slaughtered for 36 their personal use, which though it may involve a commercial transaction is not the sale of meat. In our opinion the argument for the Municipal Committee cannot be sustained. The fact that the Municipal Committee charges the Petitioners a separate fee for running hotels and does not insist upon them to take out a license for keeping meat stalls gives away the entire case of the Municipal Committee. It is common knowledge that meat which is dressed and cooked is not meat in the raw but is converted into something quite different. It cannot be said that hotel and restaurant-keepers are selling meat as such. It is common knowledge that meat which is dressed and cooked is not meat in the raw but is converted into something quite different. It cannot be said that hotel and restaurant-keepers are selling meat as such. When the use ceases to be domestic or personal and becomes commercial, is a matter not easy of solution as may be seen from Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation v. Yuille (1939) 2 K.B. 769. Here, however, the matter is simpler than even it was in the above case. The permission by the Municipal Committee to all and sundry to get their goats and sheep slaughtered for a personal purpose on payment of a fee would include even a hotel or restaurant-keeper, provided he does not fall within the category of a person getting goats and sheep slaughtered for selling meat in the raw. The use in the hotel of meat thus obtained is a personal use, even though some element of commerce may enter into its use. That is how the English case was also decided, and it was held in that case that even the washing of instruments by a surgeon cannot be described as a commercial use of the water in which the instruments are washed. We think that the Municipal Committee is anxious to increase the business of their licensed meat stalls by forcing the hotel-keepers to go and purchase meat there. The Municipal Committee is putting this pressure upon these Petitioners indirectly by describing them as vendors of meat when they are not. In our opinion, the Petitioners were making use of the slaughterhouses for their personal use and they could not, so long as the resolution of 1952 stood, be deprived of this right. The petition accordingly succeeds. The Municipal authorities are directed to allow the Petitioners the liberty permitted by their resolution of 1952, in the absence of proof that they were selling meat in the raw. In the circumstances of the case we do not think that we should award any costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposited by the Petitioners be refunded to them. Petition allowed.