JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioners in O. Ps. 781, 783 and 784 of 1958 are three steamship companies doing business as common carriers of goods by sea in vessels owned by them, having their branch offices and their godown 2/154, in Cochin, where goods are stored either for loading the vessels, or after unloading from them, for delivery to consignees. The petitioner in O. P. 782 of 1958 is a company carrying on business as stevedores in Cochin, having entered into contracts with the petitioners in the other three petitions, for the supply of labour for loading and unloading cargo, who also used the aforesaid godown for their business. The Commissioner, Mattancherry Municipality who is the respondent in these petitions demanded, that the petitioners do obtain licences, in their names for the godown, from the executive Authority of the Municipal Council under S.255(1) of the Cochin Municipal Act (XVIII of 1113), referred to hereafter as the Act, read with clause (o) of Schedule V of the Act. The material part of S.255(1) reads as follows:-- "The Council may publish by notification in the Cochin Government Gazette and by bear of drum that no place within Municipal limits or at a distance within one mile of such limits shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule V without the licence of the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein ........" and Schedule V is entitled "purposes for which premises may not be used without a licence under S.255" and clause (o) reads: "selling grain, rice or jaggery wholesale or storing grain, rice or jaggery for the wholesale trade" The petitioners replied to the respondent, that they are not carrying on any trade whatever, and are not bound to take licences for the godown. It was not disputed, that the petitioners are not carrying on any trade and that the goods stored temporarily in the godown may consist also of "grain, rice or jaggery". It is not to be presumed, that the consignees of such goods must necessarily and always be, wholesale traders. 2. The only question for decision in these petitions is, whether the godowns are used by the petitioners for storing these goods "for the wholesale trade". It is not to be presumed, that the consignees of such goods must necessarily and always be, wholesale traders. 2. The only question for decision in these petitions is, whether the godowns are used by the petitioners for storing these goods "for the wholesale trade". It was not the case, that any sale, wholesale or retail, takes place in the godown, and so the first part of clause (o) is not attracted; it seems to me, that the second part of it also is not attracted, for the reason, that the storage is not for any trade whatever, but is either for loading cargo or for distribution to the consignees after unloading. In my view, the expression "for the wholesale trade" in clause (o) qualifies "storing" but the learned counsel for the respondent contended, that if grain or rice or jaggery, which is intended for wholesale trade or which may be made the subject of such trade, is stored in the godown, clause (o) is applicable. This contention is farfetched and cannot be accepted. This is not also in consonance with the grammatical construction of the expression "storing grains, rice or jaggery for the wholesale trade". The definite article "the" in the expression "the wholesale trade" is not of any significance in this respect, and might well refer to "selling ................ wholesale" or "wholesale" envisaged in the first part of clause (o). That storage simpliciter is not what is intended to be licensed, is clear from other clauses in Schedule V such as clauses (d), (f), (i), (n), (q) and (r), where storing by itself, is sufficient to attract the imposition of licence fee. If the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is to prevail, there is nothing to prevent the Municipal Council from insisting upon a railway goods-shed where goods transported or intended for transport are stored, some of which are intended for delivery to wholesale traders, from being licensed. This certainly could not have been intended by the legislature. I feel no difficulty in holding, that the demand made by the respondent on the petitioners is illegal, and is not justified by S.255(1) read with clause (o) of Schedule V of the Act. The insistence by the respondent, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on their business. I feel no difficulty in holding, that the demand made by the respondent on the petitioners is illegal, and is not justified by S.255(1) read with clause (o) of Schedule V of the Act. The insistence by the respondent, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on their business. The demand made on the petitioners by the respondent, and the proceedings taken pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. These petitions are allowed. No costs.