R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) ONE Fiyaz Ahmed is an allottee of shop No. 42 in the Beef market, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. He is engaged in sale of beef in terms of the license issued to him by the Corporation. he is carrying on the said business in the said shop for several years. He is also a registered Contractor with the Dy. Conservator of Forests, Bannerghatta National Park, Bangalore, for supply of feeding articles to the animals. He has supplied material without any complaint whatsoever. Respondent 2 called for tenders for supply of feeding articles for the year 2001-2002 for the rescued animals Unit 1 to 5 at Bannerghatta National Park. Petitioner and respondent 3 and others submitted the tenders to respondent 2. On 25-1-2001, the respondent 2 opened the tender and subsequently cancelled the same for technical reasons. A second tender notification was issued on 2-3-2001 calling for quotations at Unit 1 to 5 again. Petitioner in this petition is concerned only in so far as it relates to Unit 1 and 5 for the rescued animals at Bannerghatta National Park. Petitioner submitted a sealed tender to the respondent. On 22-3-2001 respondent 2 opened the tender. The tender submitted by one Horizon Quality Beef and Meet suppliers came to be rejected. The other two tenders that were left for consideration by respondent 2, were that of the petitioner and respondent 3. Petitioner offered Rs. 31,58,550/- as against the offer of respondent 3 at Rs. 41,56,500/ -. Thereafter, the respondent 1 in terms of his order rejected the tender submitted by the petitioner and accepted the tender submitted by respondent 3. ( 2 ) PETITIONER further states that the tender conditions do not provide for any license as could be seen from the material on record. Petitioner further states that he has a valid license and therefore the rejection of his case is unsustainable. Petitioner says that respondent 3 does not have any separate license whatsoever but still his case has been considered to the detriment of the petitioner. In the circumstances the petitioner is challenging annexure B, order passed by the respondent 2 in Court. ( 3 ) THE State Government has also filed a counter and in the counter it is stated that the material facts reveal that the petitioner has no valid license issued by the Municipal Corporation. In the circumstances the petitioner is challenging annexure B, order passed by the respondent 2 in Court. ( 3 ) THE State Government has also filed a counter and in the counter it is stated that the material facts reveal that the petitioner has no valid license issued by the Municipal Corporation. The certificate submitted by the petitioners are from the Veterinary officer and the Karnataka Meat and Poultry Marketing Corporation Ltd. , Those certificates cannot be treated as licenses in law. They also rely on annexure R1. They have also filed annexure R2 a letter dt. 24-4-2001. Annexure R3 is the form of license submitted by the petitioner after opening of the tender condition. They have also filed the proceedings at annexure R6. ( 4 ) I have heard the counsel on either side. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner reiterated the facts and the grounds raised in the petition in support of his case. Counsel further argued that respondent 3 has no license at all and what is produced by respondent 3 is nothing but an agreement between the parties. Petitioner's counsel says that the petitioner has a license in terms of annexure R3. Therefore his case requires consideration. ( 6 ) PER contra respondents contend that the petitioner did not produce any license at the time of opening of the tender. Contesting respondent says that what is produced by him is a legal license and there is no other license available for the purpose of tender. ( 7 ) IN the light of these submissions made by counsel on either side I have carefully gone through the material placed before me. Annexure A is a tender notification bearing No. BNP/feed CR : 25/2000-2001 dt. 2-3-2001. The said tender is for supply of feeding articles for the year 2001-2002, Tender conditions in terms of annexure R1 provides for a lowest rate for each unit in terms of clause 15. In terms of clause 24 a tenderer is required to supply the articles as per regular indents placed three days in advance by the Range Forest officer. Clause 36 provides for production of a valid license from the concerned Municipal Corporation. ( 8 ) IN the light of this condition in terms of clause 36 a production of valid license from the Municipal Corporation is a must as I see from the material on record. Clause 36 provides for production of a valid license from the concerned Municipal Corporation. ( 8 ) IN the light of this condition in terms of clause 36 a production of valid license from the Municipal Corporation is a must as I see from the material on record. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no license need be produced at the time of submissions of tender cannot be accepted. Factually the petitioner has not produced the license and, he has only produced annexure C and C2 which are nothing but certificates from the Karnataka Meat and Poultry Marketing Corporation Ltd. , and from the Veterinary officer. The respondents as I see from the proceedings have noticed that the petitioner did not submit a valid license on the date of opening of the tender. Therefore, they have rejected his case. In so far as respondent 3 is concerned they have accepted his tender in the light of the submission of annexure R2. The endorsement at annexure B states that petitioners' case cannot be considered for want of license. The said endorsement cannot be said to be bad in law in the light of the tender condition. However, in annexure B they have accepted the respondent 3's tender on the basis of annexure R2. Annexure R2 according to respondent 2 is a license issued by the Corporation. I am unable to accept this submission. Admittedly annexure R2 is nothing but a deed of license providing for occupation of shop No. 34 by respondent 3. A reading of the license as a whole would show that it is only a license to occupy the shop premises on payment of certain license fee. No doubt in clause 5 a condition has been imposed that license viz. , R3 (Sic) was to use the shop only for the purpose of sale of mutton/beef. A restrictive clause with regard to use of shop for the purpose of selling beef/mutton cannot be equated to a license by the Corporation as contended by the respondent. To my repeated questions to the respondents they say that annexure R2 is the license in favour of Respondent 3. As I mentioned earlier a deed of license mentioning the use of shop for selling beef/mutton business cannot be termed as a license from the concerned Municipal Corporation in terms of Cl. 36. To my repeated questions to the respondents they say that annexure R2 is the license in favour of Respondent 3. As I mentioned earlier a deed of license mentioning the use of shop for selling beef/mutton business cannot be termed as a license from the concerned Municipal Corporation in terms of Cl. 36. Therefore, the acceptance of tender of respondent 3 on the basis of annexure R2 requires my interference and I do so in this case. ( 9 ) I must also point out at this stage that the petitioner subsequently after opening of the tender has submitted a license issued by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The same has been filed by the respondent himself at annexure R3. It bears the signature of the Commissioner with a seal of the medical officer for Health, Bangalore City Corporation. ( 10 ) MR. Dayananandakumar, counsel for the respondent however invites my attention to the license submitted by the petitioner and contends that the said license cannot be treated as license in terms of clause 36 of the tender condition. I am unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that the tender condition is silent with regard to the type of license required to be submitted by a tenderer. The expression "meat" has not been defined anywhere in the tender conditions. ( 11 ) COUNSEL further contended that the meat license is not beef license. ( 12 ) THE dictionary meaning of the word meat in terms of Webster's New International Dictionary is as under :"meat - flesh of animals used as food as distinguished from fish or fowl" ( 13 ) THE dictionary meaning of the word "meat" as per the Universal dictionary of the English language complied by Henry Cecil Wyld is one which reads as under:"meat", food, flesh of animals used as food. The Universal dictionary published by Readers Digest, New York read :"meat" as a (I) Edible flesh of mammals, as distinguished from that of fish or poultry. (ii) Edible flesh including poultry and fish and shelfish, crab meat. The dictionary meaning of beef is (I) flesh of slaughtered full bull, or cow (ii) A full grown bull, ox or cow especially one intended for use as meat. "meat" is a generic term of edible flesh which includes beef. (ii) Edible flesh including poultry and fish and shelfish, crab meat. The dictionary meaning of beef is (I) flesh of slaughtered full bull, or cow (ii) A full grown bull, ox or cow especially one intended for use as meat. "meat" is a generic term of edible flesh which includes beef. In the light of this dictionary meaning I am of the view that beef is includable in the word "meat". Therefore, in the absence of any requirement of a separate license for beef and in the light of production of a meat license by the petitioner which includes beaf, the contention that petitioner has no license as on today cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) IN somewhat identical circumstances a division bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay State v. Gaurlmal Mahajan and Sons (1959) 10 STC 452 has considered the question as to whether the sale of "dressed poultry" can be regarded as sale of meat. The Division Bench observed :"the argument of the sales tax department is that meat, which is understood as such in common parlance, would undoubtedly be excluded from the operation of the taxing provisions of the Act (that is, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946), but dressed poultry will not be deemed to be so excluded because it is not meat in ordinary parlance. The expression "meat" has not been defined in the Sales Tax Act. The Webster's New International Dictionary gives the equivalent of meat as flesh of animals used as food, as distinguished from fish or fowl". Undoubtedly in common parlance and even commercially meat means flesh of cattle, swine, sheep, goats etc. , and may not include dressed poultry, but the expression "meat" in its wider connotation does include dressed poultry. when the legislature has sought to exclude from liability to pay sales tax practically all materials which are normally used as food stuffs or condiments for seasoning foodstuffs, we must require very strong indication to the contrary to fortify us in holding that poultry, which is a recognised food, is not included in the expression"meat". when the legislature has sought to exclude from liability to pay sales tax practically all materials which are normally used as food stuffs or condiments for seasoning foodstuffs, we must require very strong indication to the contrary to fortify us in holding that poultry, which is a recognised food, is not included in the expression"meat". fish is exempt from payment of sales tax; similarly fresh eggs are exempt from payment of tax; and if the expression "meat" in its wider connotation includes dressed poultry, we see no reason, looking to the context in which the word is used, for holding that it is not used in its wider connotation in entry No. 4 of the second schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1946". ( 15 ) THE Calcutta High Court in a subsequent judgment reported in (1973) 31 STC 474 in Aloke Chand Mitra v. State of West Bengal, followed the decision of the Bombay High Court. ( 16 ) IN the light of the dictionary meaning and in the light of the two decisions I have no hesitation in holding that the "meat" license submitted by the petitioner includes beef sale. The contention of the contesting respondent is not acceptable to me. In these circumstances annexure B is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with law and in accordance with the observation made in the course of this order. ( 17 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .