Judgment B.P.Singh and Gurusharan Sharma JJ. 1. The petitioner herein is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act It is a small scale industry and has also a licences under the provisions of the Bihar Factory Rules, 1950. It is engaged in the business of manufacture soft drinks since the year 1980. It enjoys a franchise right to manufacture popular cold drinks from M/s. Parley (Export) Private Limited, Bombay which supplies to the petitioner the concentrates/essence which is used for the purpose of manufacture of beverages at the plant of the petitioner-company at Jamshedpur. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16-7-1991 (Annexure 7) whereby the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (respondent No. 4 herein) has called upon the petitioner to apply for retail/ wholesale licence under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) as the respondent authorities are of the view that having regard to the provisions of the aforesaid order, the petitioner company is required to obtain a licence. The petitioner is also aggrieved by Annexure 10, the order of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies whereby the petitioner has been directed to take out a whole-sale licence under the provisions of the aforesaid order. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been called upon to take one licence under the said order for carrying on whole-sale trade in sugar. It is also not disputed that for the purpose of manufacture of beverages enjoys plant, the petitioner consumes a large quantity of sugar. 3. The petitioner contends that it is not a retailer or a whole-sale dealer in the commodity sugar since it does not deal in the business of purchase/sale of sugar nor does it store sugar for the purpose of sale. On behalf of the State, it is contended that even so, it is required to obtain licence under the provisions of the aforesaid order since it has to store in its premises sugar beyond the specified limit. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner company does not sell sugar to any other person, but it requires sugar for production of its products. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company is a consumer of the essential commodity namely sugar. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner company does not sell sugar to any other person, but it requires sugar for production of its products. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company is a consumer of the essential commodity namely sugar. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the order. Clause 2(a) of the order defines bulk consumer in the following terms : "bulk consumer means a hotel, a restaurant, a halwai, a hospital, an educational institution with hostel facilities or a religious or charitable institution with hostel facilities". It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the order. Clause 2(a) of the order defines bulk consumer in the following terms : "bulk consumer means a hotel, a restaurant, a halwai, a hospital, an educational institution with hostel facilities or a religious or charitable institution with hostel facilities". Similarly, a "dealer" is defined as follows in clause 2(e) of the order : "dealer" means a person, a firm, an association of persons or a co-operative society other than a National and State level co-operative society, engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage in the sale of any trade article whether or not in conjunction with any other business and includes his representative or agent but does not include : (i) a person who holds or is in possession of agriculture land under any tenure or any capacity and on which he raises or has raised crop of foodgrains, oilseeds or whole pulses ; (ii) a manufacturer of sugar ; (iii) Hawkers engaged in the purchase and sale of non-controlled cloth" "Retail dealer" and "wholesale dealer" are defined in sub-clauseds (p) and (u)of clause 2 of the order which read thus ; (p) "retail dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage of any article (specified in Schedule 1) for purpose other than personal consumption within the storage limit fixed by the Government from time to time ; (u) "wholesale dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage of any article (specified in Schedule I) for purpose other than personal consumption within the storage limit fixed by the Government from time to time ;" Clause 3 of the order provides that : "No dealer shall after the commencement of this order, carry on business of (purchase), sale or storage for sale of any of the trade articles mentioned in Schedule I except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of this order." Clause 4 of the order provides that every application for grant of licence (wholesale or retail) shall be made to the licensing authority in Form A along with the fee prescribed. The licence is to be issued in Form C. Form A requires an applicant to disclose, apart from other particulars, the "particulars of trade articles in which the applicant wants to carry on business" as a wholeseller or a retailer. Column 9 of the application also requires an applicant to disclose how long he has been trading in the trade articles for which licence has been applied for. In clause 11 of the application, the applicant is required to give complete address of the godown or place where the trade article for which licence has been applied will be stored. 4. The licence which is issued in Form C lays down the terms and conditions subject to which the licensee is authorised to purchase, to sell or store for sale the articles mentioned therein as wholeseller or retailer, as the case may be. 5. Paragraph 2 of the licence prescribes the place where the licensee shall carry on business of the aforesaid trade article, and the licensee is not authorised to store at any place other than the godown mentioned in the licence the articles in which the business is to be carried on. The licensee is required to enter all the transactions relating to purchnse/sale of trade article in the stock register. In paragraph 6 of the licence, he is required to display conspicuously in Form F the list of particlars of stocks of the trade articles he deals with. 6. Paragraph 7 provides that the licensee shall issue to every customer of all such trade articles the cash memo or invoice, as the case may be giving the particulars mentioned in that paragraph. Thre are other terms and conditions in the licence which are relevant only if the licensee is required to carry on business in the trade articles concerned, namely, the business of purchase/sale of the concerned trade articles. Schedule IV provides for licence fee payable in respect of the commodities mentioned there in, including sugar. The fee payable is prescribed separately for wholesale dealer and a retail dealer. 7. It will thus be seen that a wholesale or a retail dealer in sugar is required to take out a licence and carry on business in such article in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the licence. The fee payable is prescribed separately for wholesale dealer and a retail dealer. 7. It will thus be seen that a wholesale or a retail dealer in sugar is required to take out a licence and carry on business in such article in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the licence. So far as the consumer is concerned, there is no provision that a consumer, if he stores sugar for his consumption is also required to take out a licence under the aforesaid order. 8. The learned Government Advocate submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner is neither a retailer nor a wholesale dealer in sugar. The fact/that he stores sugar in the premises attracts all the provisions of the order. The submission must be rejected because, unless he stores for sale, the provisions of order are not attracted. He then submitted that in one sense, sugar stored by the petitioner is sold because the baverages which the petitioner manufactures contains sugar. In that sense, he submits, that the petitioner is a dealer in sugar. This contention must also be rejected because the Unification Order deals with purchase/sale or storage for sale of a trade articles. In the instant case sugar as such is not sold by the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be required to take out a licence under the provisions of the Order. It will be seen that bulk consumer, means hotel, restaurant and halwai etc. In the case of hotel restaurant or halwai, the consumption is not by the owner of the hotel or the restaurant by the halwai himself. The trade article, sugar is consumed for the purpose of preparation of other food articles consumed by the customers of such hotel/restaurant and the halwai. 9. The acheme of the Order, therefore, discloses that the requirement of a licence under the Order is applicable only to such persons who carry on business of purchase/sale and store for sale of any trade article. If the particular trade article is consumed by the concerned person in the sense that he has utilised it for the manufacture of any other commodity, such a person cannot be said to be carrying on business in the purchase/ sale of sugar, nor does he store for sale such sugar. He is neither a retailer nor a wholesale dealer. Indeed, he is not a dealer at all. 10. He is neither a retailer nor a wholesale dealer. Indeed, he is not a dealer at all. 10. The view that we have taken finds support from the obseravtion of this Court (Full Bench) reported in, 1990 B. B. C. J, 294. No doubt, that was not a case under the Unification Order. The question arise is at to whether the petitioner was required to take out a licence under the provisions of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Committee Act, 1960 treating him as a trader under the provisions of that Act. It was found by the Court that wood was utilised by the petitioner which was engaged in the manufacture of steel in its mines for certain purposes and in that context, it was observed that he could not be considered a trader in that commodity within the meaning of that Act. Counsel for the petitioner also drew support from the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 1991 (Supplement 2) S. C. C. 506 and submitted that the same principle must be applied in the instant case as well. 11. We are satisfied that having regard to the scheme of the Order and having regard to the terms and conditions contained in the licence issued to a dealer under the said Order, the petitioner is not required to apply for licence under Unification order. The petitioner is neither, engaged in the business of purchase/sale of sugar, nor does he store sugar for the purpose of sale ; it does not trade in sugar at all. It is, therefore neither a retailer nor a wholesaler in sugar. At best, it can be said that it is a bulk consumer of sugar which is required for the manufacture of beverage at its plant. 12. In the result, this application is allowed. Annexures 7 and 10 to this application are quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is not required to take out licence under the provisions of the Unification Order for storage of sugar, which it utilised for the manufacture of beverages, we may only notice that under Clause 18 of the Order, no limit has so far been fixed by the State Government for storage simpliciter of any trade article and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the provisions of clause 18 of the Order. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.