ORDER.-As the point involved in both these writ petitions is the same, they are dealt with together. The petitioners are manufacturers of kunkum for more than 30 years. All these years the petitioners were not asked to take out a licence for the manufacture and sale of kunkum on the ground that the kunkum manufactured by them would not come within the scope of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended in 1962. For the first time on 28th April, 1973, the Drugs Inspector issued notices to the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken for alleged contravention of section 18 (c) of the Act in not taking out a licence. This notice proceeded on the basis that kunkum manufactured by the petitioners is a cosmetic within the meaning of section 3 (aaa) of the said Act and that as such a licence in Form No. 32 was necessary for the manufacture and sale of kunkum. The petitioners made representations to" the effect that kunkum was largely used in temples and as a religious symbol and as a sign of good married status by Hindu woman and that the same can never be brought under the definition of "cosmetic " under section 3 (aaa) as defined in the Act. They also relied on the fact that the Commercial Tax Authorities have not treated kunkum as a cosmetic and are taxing the article only at multipoint, treating the same as not a cosmetic. These representations were, however, ignored by the Drugs Inspector and he has issued the impugned memos directing the petitioners to take a manufacturing licence within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the memo. and threatening to take action on their failure to take out licences as directed. The validity of those memos. has been challenged in these writ petitions mainly on the ground that kunkum manufactured by the petitioners cannot be brought under the definition of ‘cosmetic’ in section 3 (aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1962. 2. The validity of those memos. has been challenged in these writ petitions mainly on the ground that kunkum manufactured by the petitioners cannot be brought under the definition of ‘cosmetic’ in section 3 (aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1962. 2. The petitioners’ case is that kunkum is normally used as a religious symbol and it has never been used as cosmetic that the kunkum made by them is not a beautifying agent and that according to the definition in the Act, only such substances or preparations which are used mainly for beautifying the human body that can be taken in as a ‘cosmetic’. 3. A cosmetic has been defined in section 3 (aaa) of the Act as follows: " ‘cosmetic’ means any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, or introduced into, or otherwise applied to, the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and includes any article intended for use as a component of cosmetic, but does not include soap." The question is whether the kunkum manufactured by the petitioners can be taken as coming within the definition of cosmetic under the Act. 4. According to the petitioners, this definition will attract only an article or preparation which is used as a beautifying agent and cannot take in an article like kunkum which is generally applied to the human body only as a religious mark or as a mark showing the married status of individuals and which is used in temple worship. The learned counsel also refers to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘cosmetic’ and contends that the word should be understood in its ordinary and popular sense. ‘Cosmetic’ has been defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as ‘a preparation for beautifying the hair, skin or complexion’. In the Webster’s International Dictionary, ‘Cosmetic ‘is defined as a preparation to beautify or alter appearance of the body or for cleansing, colouring, conditioning or protecting skin, hair, nails, eyes or teeth. Since there is a specific definition in the Act, I am of the view that it is not possible to invoke the aid of the dictionary meaning of the word ‘cosmetic’ or the definitions of the word used in other statutes. Since there is a specific definition in the Act, I am of the view that it is not possible to invoke the aid of the dictionary meaning of the word ‘cosmetic’ or the definitions of the word used in other statutes. From the definition under the Act as extracted above, it is seen that a substance will come under the definition of a cosmetic if it is intended to be applied to the human body or any part thereof for altering the appearance. In this case, the petitioners are manufacturing not only ordinary conventional red kunkum which is used merely as a religious mark by individuals and in temples, but also the other qualities of kunkum in various attractive shades such as blue, yellow etc. by using turmeric or tapioca to match the sarees worn by the individual. The fact that the petitioners are manufacturing kunkum in several attractive shades to match the sarees indicates that they are manufacturing kunkum also for altering the appearance of the persons wearing it. Once kunkum is made in various shades to match the sarees, such kunkum will come under the definition of cosmetic’ as such kunkum is used only for the purpose of altering the appearance of the individual wearing it. Therefore, the kunkum made in several shades excluding the conventional red or yellow kunkum used by the ladies and others as a mere religious mark as also in temples, must be taken as coming under the definition of ‘cosmetic’. The kunkum manufactured in various shades to match sarees cannot be taken to be the normal conventional kunkum which is used during religious functions among Hindus and in the temples, and as a religious mark by individuals. Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 8, page 33 under the head ‘cosmetics’ refers to the various forms of cosmetics applied to the skin by the ancients which were derived from simple vegetable colorings, herbs, roots, berries, and nuts and gives by way of example,the Hindus using almond paste for colouring body to indicate their caste and mix vermillion with wax for facial marks. It is well known that in modern days colour harmony in make-up has come into being with major cosmetic companies bringing out seasonal lines of new colours in every phase of make-up. It is well known that in modern days colour harmony in make-up has come into being with major cosmetic companies bringing out seasonal lines of new colours in every phase of make-up. It therefore appears to be clear that though kunkum is applied as a facial mark, if it is applied with a view to bring in a colour harmony in the makeup of an individual it should be taken as an article of makeup. This is so, especially when the article is available in various colours to be used for different occasions and different seasons with an idea to improve the “total look” of the individual. I have to therefore hold that in respect of the kunkum manufactured by the petitioners in several shades for matching sarees they have to take out alicence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended in 1962. But as regards the conventional red or yellow kunkum made only for use at religious functions and in temples and as a religious mark by individuals,that cannot be taken to come under the definition of a cosmetic for such kunkum is not used merely for altering the appearance of a human body. 5. Therefore the impugned orders of the Drugs Inspector in these cases will have to be sustained as regards the kunkum made in various shades except the conventional yellow and red kunkum referred to above. As regards the conventional red or yellow kunkum referred to above which is not intended to be used to alter the appearance of human body the petitioners are not bound to take out any licence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though cosmetics were brought under the Act from 1962 they were not told so far that the kunkum manufactured by them will come under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that therefore they have been dealing in kunkum without taking out a licence and the Act has been amended to cover cosmetics in 1962 only in the year 1973 for the first time the Drugs Inspector has chosen to say that the kunkum manufactured by the petitioners will come under the definition of ‘cosmetics’ in the Act. Since they have been acting under the bona fide belief that the kunkum manufactured by them will not come under the Act, as regards the existing stock they cannot be penalised for not taking out a licence, though they are bound to take out licenses for the kunkum to be manufactured by them in future except for the conventional kunkum referred to above. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel in this regard. 7. The writ petitions are, therefore, partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.