JUDGMENT K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON, J. - The questions arising for consideration in these original petitions are identical and therefore they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners purchased the goods in dispute from the Pondicherry Distilleries, Pondicherry, as per exhibit P7. These goods were being transported from Pondicherry, to Mahe in a vehicle. The vehicle carrying the goods has to pass through Karnataka State and State of Kerala. When the vehicle reached the check-post at Kootupuzha, the Inspector at the check-post detained the goods and issued the notice contemplated under section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The defect noted in the notice is "the declaration in from 27B has not been signed by the consignor. Evasion of tax suspected". 3. The goods detained by the authorities, however, were released later pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. 4. Rule 35(13)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules prescribes that the declaration referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act shall be in form 27B. The said declaration shall be filled in and signed by the consignor [see clause (14) of rule 35]. That the petitioners are the persons who had booked the vehicle for transporting the same from Pondicherry to Mahe is not disputed. That the petitioners purchased these goods from the Pondicherry Distilleries and as such they have become the absolute owners, again is not in dispute. If that be so, the observation in the notice that the declaration has not been signed by the consignor is erroneous, the counsel for the petitioners submits. 5. The word "consignor" is not defined. The rules of interpretation therefore requires to be adhered to, to find out the meaning. What then is the relevant rule of interpretation. It should in this connection be remembered that words are generally used in their ordinary sense and to find out the ordinary meaning or rather the meaning in common parlance a reference to dictionaries can be had. A word is capable of having diverse meanings, according to lexicographers. If a word thus does have diverse meanings, then the meaning which is most apposite in the context shall be accepted. The word here however, does not have diverse meanings. It, "consignor", means "one who sends or makes a consignment; a shipper of goods" - Black's Law Dictionary. A word is capable of having diverse meanings, according to lexicographers. If a word thus does have diverse meanings, then the meaning which is most apposite in the context shall be accepted. The word here however, does not have diverse meanings. It, "consignor", means "one who sends or makes a consignment; a shipper of goods" - Black's Law Dictionary. "A person or company that consigns goods, merchandise, etc." - The Random House Dictionary. "Consign" means "transmit, send by rail, etc., to (person), whence consignee" - The Concise Oxford Dictionary. "Consignor" therefore means the one who consigns the goods from one place to the other. The consignor in the context therefore can only mean the one who consigns the goods. May be that the consignor has purchased the goods from a manufacture or a person who is dealing in the said goods. That does not mean that the manufacturer or the person who deals in the goods will be the consignor, unless it be, that they themselves send the goods. The department has no case that it was the distillery which sent the goods. The distillery therefore cannot be said to be the "consignor". The petitioners on the other hand are the "consignor', going by the the admitted facts. The declaration therefore is not defective. If this was the only ground on which the goods happened to be detained, then there was no need for a further investigation as provided for under section 29A(4). But that is not the position. 6. On going through the various documents produced in the O.P. it is clear that there are certain other matters that require a detailed investigation. I do not wish to make any comment on these aspects because the investigation into these aspects has yet to be done by the authority concerned. The authority concerned therefore is directed to completed the investigation already initiated as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within two moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order that the authority will ultimately pass after investigation, they have the right to challenge the same by filing appeal before the appellate authority under section 34. The petitioners therefore have an effective alternate remedy. Original Petitions are disposed of as above. Issue carbon copy on usual terms. Petitions disposed of accordingly.