9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Ors. (Writ Petitions No. 1759-1949 of 1977). The main contention of the petitioners has been that there are as many as 18,000 husking mills owned and operated by various persons in the State of West Bengal and each mill employs 4 or 5 persons. The provisions of the Act which require the petitioners to take licences for operating the mills amount to a complete destruction of the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on business and the provisions further contain unguided and uncanalised powers so as to violate the provisions of Article 14. In all the other writ petitions the arguments put forward by the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions have been completely adopted. 3. Writ Petitions No. 1135 to 1155 of 1977 have been filed by Chandra Kanta Saha and Ors. where the petitioners have merely challenged the validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977 dated 9-8-1977 which has repealed portions of Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) West Bengal Second Amendment Act of 1974 and deleted Section 6A of that Act. 4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by counsel for the parties, it may be necessary to give a brief history of the legislation on the subject. It appears that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) which may be extracted is a provision which applies expressly to rice hullers attached to or maintained by any flour, oil, dal or other mills or pumping sets as they apply to rice mills mutatis mutandis : 3A-The provisions of this Act shall apply to rice hullers attached to, or maintained with, any flour, oil dal or other mill, or pumping set as they apply to rice mills subject to the modification that any reference to the commencement of this Act in those provisions shall, in their application to such rice-hullers, be construed as a reference to the commencement of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1968- 6. Section 5 requires permits to be taken for a new or defunct rice mill and Sub-sections (4) and (5) which run thus : (4) Before granting any permit under Sub-section (3) the Central Government shall cause a full and complete investigation to be made in the prescribed manner in respect of the application and shall have due regard to- (a) the number of rice mills operating in the locality; (b) the availability of paddy in the locality; (c) the availability of power and water supply for the rice mill in respect of which a permit is applied for; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deposit of such sum, if any, as security for the due performance of the conditions as may be prescribed. 7. This section therefore requires every owner of an existing rice mill to make an application for obtaining a licence. The application is to be made to a licensing officer. It may be pertinent to note here that once an application is filed by an owner of a rice-mill the licensing officer has no discretion in the matter but has a mandatory duty to grant a licence as will appear from the word "shall" which follows licensing officer. Sub-section (4) again lays down the period of licence etc. Section 7 provides the ground on which the licensing officer can revoke or suspend the licence after giving the licencee an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. This section runs thus :- (1) If the licensing officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that,- (a) a licence granted under Section 6 has been obtained by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, or (b) the holder of licence has, without reasonable cause, failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus appear that the rice hullers were practically performing the same functions as rice millers but without any control having been exercised on them, as a result of which the poor rice growers were exploited and the hand-pounding industry suffered. Sometimes the supply position of the rice also suffered. 9. Coming now to the merits of the amendments of 1968, it was argued in the first place that the introduction of Section 3A unmistakably shows that the definition in Section 3(d) & (gg) did not include the rice hullers. It was also argued that Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3(d) must be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. We are however unable to agree with these arguments. Having regard to the setting in which Section 3(d) is placed and the dominant object of the Amendment Act the intention of the Legislature was to widen the purport and scope of the definition of milling rice. If Clauses (i) and (ii) are read conjunctively then it will defeat the very purpose of the Act and would in fact become meaningless because Clause (i) which means recovering rice or any product thereof from paddy would include products like chura etc. which do not require polishing and yet if we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uel or packing, and the straw is used for feed, for bedding livestock, for thatching roofs, and for mats, garments, packing and broom straws. Thus, on a true interpretation of Section 3(d) Clauses (i) and (ii) and (gg) there can be absolutely no doubt that the section includes the operation carried out by the rice hullers. In view of this interpretation it was not necessary for the Legislature to have added Section 3(A) but this was done in order to put the matter beyond doubt or controversy. 10. Counsel for the petitioners assailed these provisions of the Act on three grounds, viz., (1) that the Act by bringing the rice hullers and rice millers within the same fold seems to treat unequals as equals, because rice hullers cannot be equated with rice millers, (2) that Sections 5 and 6 contained uncanalised and unguided powers so as to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and (3) that the provisions compelling the petitioners to take licences is too harsh in nature and is an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on their business. 11. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is absolutely without any substance. Having regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would also be of great help in ensuring that the raw material would go to those industries where it was needed most and distributed in such quantities to several industries in different parts of the country as would procure the greatest benefit to the general public. 13. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in the case of Daruka & Co. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0052/1973 : [1974]1SCR570 where Ray, C.J. speaking for the Court observed as follows :- this Court in Glass Chatons case MANU/SC/0034/1961 : [1962]1SCR862 held that if the scheme of canalisation of imports is in the interest of the general public the refusal of licence to outsiders would also be in the interest of the general public. The canalisation of import was held to be per se not an unreasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. Policies of imports or exports are fashioned not only with reference to internal or international trade but also on monetary policy, the development of agriculture and industries and even on the political policies. If the Government decides an economic policy that import or export should be by a selected channel or through selected agencies the court would proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
