P. SUNDARDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had, with a view to set up a wheat roller flour mill at Chelambra Village of Malappuram District, applied to the 3rd respondent, District Collector, Malappuram, for a license under the provisions of Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (the Order). On 18 -3 -1981 the petitioner was granted a license. Subsequently the petitioner received a communication from the 3rd respondent dated 11 -11 -1981, a true copy of which is Ext. PI, informing him as follows: -

(2.) IT would appear from the averments made in Ground D of the writ petition that the Government of India had issued a Press Note in June 1979 to the effect that the the State Governments might permit entrepreneurs desiring to install roller flour mills with a capacity of 30 tonnes per day without the need to Obtain industrial license under the provisions of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, and that the said Press Note was withdrawn by Press Note No. 13 (69) LP|79 dated 24 -5 -1980. According to the petitioner the 3rd respondent by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 11 -11 -1981 cancelled the license granted to the petitioner on 18 -3 -1981 apparently on the ground that by virtue of the said Press Note the State Government's authority to order installation of roller flour mills below 30 tonnes capacity stood withdrawn on 24 -5 -1980 and, therefore, he could not have granted license to the petitioner on 18 -3 -1981. It is evident that the 3rd respondent had mistaken the Press Note as affecting his statutory power under the Order to grant license for wheat roller flour mills.

(3.) IF clause 2(c) of the Order remained in force on 18 -3 -1981, the license granted by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner on that date could not be characterized as one granted by him without power. Clause 2(c) has been amended with effect from 6 -2 -1982 by Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Amendment Order, 1982 (the amendment Order), substituting the words "Central Government" for the words "State Government." This amendment has no retrospective effect. The question is whether by administrative instructions this power vested on the 3rd respondent by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the statutory rules, could be annulled or abridged. There is no legal force in the contention of the respondents that the license granted by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner on 18 -3 -1981 was against administrative instructions given by the Central Government to the State Government, and, therefore, the license was ab initio invalid. The power conferred on the 3rd respondent under the statutory provisions cannot be taken away by administrative instructions or executive orders. The Central Government evidently proceeded on a wrong assumption that by its administrative instructions the power vested in the State Government had ceased to exist, and that has led the 3rd respondent to hold that the license granted to the petitioner on 18 -3 -'81 was ab initio void, as stated in his communication dated 11 -11 -1981. This understanding of the position being absolutely wrong, Ext. P1 order of the 3rd respondent and Ext. P4 communication of the 4th respondent based on a mis -interpretation of the legal position cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.