JUDGMENT Dharam Veer, J. :— By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.5.1994 (Annexure-VII) and to quash the impugned notifications dated 31.10.1991 (Annexure-I) and the impugned demand notices dated 28.2.1993 and 22.4.1993 (Annexures-II and III respectively). The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from realizing licence fee in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 23.7.1993 and 22.4.1993. 2. In brief, the facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the factory of the petitioner established in the year 1986 and at that point of time even though the Zila Parishad was not rendering any services at all, a licence fee came to be imposed at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per annum. The petitioner’s unit at that point of time did not realise the implications thereof and simply continued to deposit the licence fee as and when demanded by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondent-Zila Parishad proposed an amendment in its bye-laws which was published by the State Government and the said bye-laws were introduced in view of the purposes and objects as contemplated under Schedule D, sub-clause (X) of Schedule (E) of Section 239(2) of the U.P. (Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats) Adhiniyam, 1961 (U.P. Act No. XXXIII of 1961) (hereinafter will be referred to as the Act). The petitioner has alleged that the Zila Parishad without consciously applying its mind straightway, issued demand notices to the petitioner demanding the licence fee at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per annum. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that his firm manufactures portable generators and the plant is mostly fixed with automatic equipments which neither brings an environmental pollution nor cause any nuisance which result any public inconvenience which directly or indirectly requires any rendering of services by the Zila Parishad. The petitioner’s unit does not either require any service nor does the Zila Parishad render any service at all for the benefit of the unit in any manner whatsoever. It has also been alleged that the petitioner’s unit does not fall within any of the categories as enumerated in the Act and hence the notification dated 31.10.1991 is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is absolutely irrational and based on no valid reasons. It has also been alleged that the petitioner’s unit does not fall within any of the categories as enumerated in the Act and hence the notification dated 31.10.1991 is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is absolutely irrational and based on no valid reasons. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said action of Zila Parishad, preferred a Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 1992-93 before the Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Nainital. The learned Commissioner after considering the material on record rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide his order dated 18.5.1994. According to the petitioner, there is absolutely no provision for leving the licence fee on the petitioner’s firm/unit. The objects of the bye-laws and the directives contained under the Act itself even did not bring the petitioner’s unit within its subject-matter and hence it has been alleged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Zila Parishad, Nainital in which the Zila Parishad has denied the contents of the writ petition. It has been stated that the Zila Parishad, Nainital is competent to charge licence fee from any person who carries any industry or business activities within the limit of Zila Parishad, Nainital under Section 143 of the U.P. Act No. XXXIII of 1961, U.P. (Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats) Adhiniyam, 1961. According to the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the Zila Parishad is entrusted with the duty to prohibit and regulate offensive trade which may or likely to cause public nuisance or which involves risk of fire. Therefore, the Zila Parishad, Nainital in exercise of its powers under Section 239(2) of the aforesaid Act has framed bye-laws whereby the Zila Parishad has regulated the industrial activities which are likely to cause public nuisance and with the purpose of regulating such offensive trade, the Zila Parishad, Nainital framed bye-laws u/s. 239(2) of the Act vide notification dated 18.1.1973 which was published on 24.2.1977. Thereafter, the Zila Parishad, Nainital made an amendment in the aforesaid bye-laws which was duly confirmed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital under the provision of Section 242 of the aforesaid Act. The Zila Parishad, Nainital before making amendment in the aforesaid bye-laws, published the same in the leading daily Hindi newspaper of the locality for inviting objections, if any, from the public at large to the amended bye-laws. The Zila Parishad, Nainital before making amendment in the aforesaid bye-laws, published the same in the leading daily Hindi newspaper of the locality for inviting objections, if any, from the public at large to the amended bye-laws. However, no objections were received from any quarter whatsoever and the amended bye-laws were published in the Official Gazette which have now become final and binding upon all parties concerned. 4. It has also been stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner’s company runs a large scale industry in the name and style of M/s Sriram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. and it manufactures Portable as well as Big Generator Sets and other power equipments within the limit of Zila Parishad, Nainital. The licence fee was being charged from the petitioner’s company for the last so many years which was being paid by the petitioner without any objections. However, the petitioner’s company has now challenged the levy of licence fee by the Zila Parishad according to the amended bye-laws and it has been alleged that in fact that the petitioner’s company is a licence holder from Zila Parishad, Nainital, the Zila Parishad is competent to impose and levy licence fee in pursuance of its power under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. It has further been stated that there is no infirmity in the order dated 18.5.1994 passed by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital where by he has dismissed 26 appeals filed by different persons. The industry of the petitioner was established in the year 1986 and a licence was also obtained by him from the Zila Parishad, Nainital after payment of requisite fee. The licence issued to the petitioner-company was renewed from time to time after the receipt of the requisite licence fee for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992. The proposed amendment in bye-law no. 11 was firstly put for discussion before the Full Board Meeting of Zila Parishad, Nainital and after resolving the same by the Board Meeting, it was published in a daily newspaper viz. Amar Ujala. The amended bye-laws were notified in the Official Gazette dated 17.7.1993 and as such it has now become final and irrevocable. 11 was firstly put for discussion before the Full Board Meeting of Zila Parishad, Nainital and after resolving the same by the Board Meeting, it was published in a daily newspaper viz. Amar Ujala. The amended bye-laws were notified in the Official Gazette dated 17.7.1993 and as such it has now become final and irrevocable. It has further been stated that the Zila Parishad, Nainital is providing basic civil amenities to all persons who resides within its territorial jurisdiction and all residents within its jurisdiction avail the facilities provided by the Zila Parishad and as such it is absolutely erroneous to state that the petitioner does not require any service from the Zila Parishad. The workmen employed in the industry are also beneficiary of the facilities provided by the Zila Parishad, Nainital in addition to the industry itself belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner’s suit squarely comes within the purview of the bye-laws as it stood before its amendment dated 31.10.1991 and the amended bye-laws are also applicable to the petitioner’s unit with equal force. The amended bye-laws have also classified in the industries on the basis of the number of workmen employed in such industry. As the petitioner’s unit has employed more than 250 workmen and as such the licence fee of Rs. 25,000/- per annum has rightly been charged from him in pursuance of the amended bye-laws. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only to this point that the Zila Panchayat, Nainital has no power to amend the bye-laws which was published vide notification dated 31.10.1991 and as such the same is against the provisions of the Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only to this point that the Zila Panchayat, Nainital has no power to amend the bye-laws which was published vide notification dated 31.10.1991 and as such the same is against the provisions of the Act. He specially emphasized his argument on Section 239(2)(D)(d) and Section 239(2)(E)(a)(x) of the Act, which are reproduced as under :— D(d) providing for the establishment, and for the regulation and inspection of markets and slaughter-houses, of livery stables, of encamping grounds, of sarais, of flour-mills, of bakeries, of places for the manufacture, preparation or sale of specified article of food or drink, or for keeping or exhibiting animals for sale or hire or animals of which the produce is sold, and of places of public entertainment or resort, and for the proper and cleanly conduct of business therein. E(a)(x) for any other purpose if such use is likely to cause a public nuisance or involve risk of fire; Section 143 of the aforesaid Act is also relevant in this case and for the sake of convenience, the same is also being reproduced as under :— 143. Licence fee, etc. — A Zila Panchayat or Kshettra Panchayat may charge a fee to be fixed by bye-law for any licence, sanction or permission which is entitled or required to grant by or under this Act. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid Act clearly shows that the Zila Panchayat is empowered to charge the licence fees. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 239(2)(D)(d) of the Act, the Zila Panchayat cannot make bye-laws for charging the licence fee from the factory of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the words stated in the aforesaid Section “of places for the manufactuer” means the preparation of sale of specified article of food or drink, or for keeping or exhibiting animals for sale or hire or animals of which the produce is sold, and of places of public entertainment or resort, and for the proper and cleanly conduct of business therein and the aforesaid words do not provide for the manufacture of the power equipments which the petitioner’s factory is manufacturing. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention on Section 239(2)(D)(d) of the Act that there is comma before the words ‘of places for the manufacture’ and after these words, there is again a comma and hence submitted that according to the bye-laws, the licence fees can be levied only in the preparation or sale of the specific article of the food or drink, or for keeping or exhibiting animals for sale or hire or animals of which the produce is sold. 8. There is a comma before the words ‘of places for the manufacture’ and there is also a comma after the aforesaid words. It means that whatever the industry it manufactures some items, the Zila Panchayat can levy the licence fees on these indsutries. When a statute is carefully punctuated and there is doubt about its meaning, a weight should undoubtedly be given to punctuation. The punctuation may have its uses in some cases but it cannot certainly be regarded as a controlling element and cannot be allowed to control the plain meaning of a text. In sub-clause (x) of clause (E) of Section 239(2) of the Act, it has specifically been provided that Zila Panchayat may in exercise of such powers make any bye-laws for any other purposes if such use is likely to cause a public nuisance or involve risk of fire. The amended bye-laws framed by the Zila Panchayat as stated above are perfectly as per the powers conferred on Zila Panchayat u/s. 239 of the Act. These bye-laws have been amended and the said bye-laws were also published and have been confirmed by the Prescribed Authority/Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and have been also published in the Gazette. Thus, the Zila Panchayat has the power to realize the licence fees as per the amended bye-laws from the petitioner’s unit and the bye-laws framed and amended by the Zila Panchayat are perfectly in accordance with law and they have been framed as has been empowered under Section 239 of the Act. 9. No other point was argued and pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.