1978 (9) TMI 188 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended in 1968.
2. Requirement for rice husking mills or rice hullers to obtain a license.
3. Validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977.
4. Whether the Act treats unequals as equals by equating rice hullers with rice millers.
5. Whether Sections 5 and 6 of the Act contain unguided and uncanalised powers.
6. Whether the licensing provisions constitute an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as Amended in 1968:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, arguing that certain provisions violated Articles 14, 19, and 301 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the Act's objectives, which include preserving the indigenous hand pounding industry and modernizing rice mills. The Court found that the Act falls within Parliament's competence under Entry 52 List I Schedule VII of the Constitution, and there was no question of legislative incompetency.

2. Requirement for Rice Husking Mills or Rice Hullers to Obtain a License:
The petitioners contended that the requirement to obtain a license for operating rice husking mills or rice hullers infringed on their fundamental right to carry on business. The Court examined Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, which outline the licensing procedure and the conditions under which licenses are granted. The Court concluded that the licensing provisions are regulatory in nature and do not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business.

3. Validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977:
The petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 1135 to 1155 of 1977 challenged the validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977, which repealed portions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) West Bengal Second Amendment Act of 1974 and deleted Section 6A. The Court did not find any merit in this challenge and dismissed the petitions.

4. Whether the Act Treats Unequals as Equals by Equating Rice Hullers with Rice Millers:
The petitioners argued that the Act improperly equates rice hullers with rice millers, thus treating unequals as equals. The Court found that both rice hullers and rice millers use power-driven machines to process rice, and there is not much difference between their operations. The classification was deemed reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, with a rational relation to the Act's objectives. Therefore, the Court overruled this contention.

5. Whether Sections 5 and 6 of the Act Contain Unguided and Uncanalised Powers:
The petitioners argued that Sections 5 and 6 confer unguided and uncanalised powers, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court examined the provisions and found that Section 6 mandates the licensing officer to grant a license upon receiving an application, leaving no discretion to refuse. Section 5 contains specific guidelines for granting permits, ensuring that the powers are not arbitrary. The Court concluded that the provisions do not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation.

6. Whether the Licensing Provisions Constitute an Unreasonable Restriction on the Right to Carry on Business:
The petitioners contended that the licensing provisions impose an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on business. The Court held that the provisions are in public interest and aimed at regulating the industry to protect the hand pounding industry and improve rice quality. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that regulatory measures in public interest do not constitute unreasonable restrictions. Therefore, the Court dismissed this contention as well.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended in 1968, and the requirement for rice husking mills or rice hullers to obtain a license. The Court found no merit in the challenges to Ordinance No. 14 of 1977 and determined that the Act does not treat unequals as equals, does not confer unguided and uncanalised powers, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on business.