P SUNDARDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had, with a view to set up a wheat roller flour mill at Chelambra village of Malappuram District, applied to respondent 3, District Collector, Malappuram, for a licence under the provisions of Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (the Order). On 18-3-1981 the petitioner was granted a licence. Subsequently the petitioner received a communication from the 3rd respondent dt. 11-11-1981, a true copy of which is Ext. P1, informing him as follows:--

(2.) We may now make a brief survey of the relevant provisions contained in the Order. Clause.2(c) of the Order (as it stood on 18-3-1981) defines the 'licensing authority'. It means an officer appointed by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of an Inspector under the Order. Clause.3 of the Order requires that no owner or person in charge of a roller mill, shall manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, any wheat product except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued under the Order. The mode of application for the licence is prescribed in Clause.4 and Clause.5 which deals with power to issue and renew licence lays down as follows:--

(3.) 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 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 licence under the provisions of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, and that the said press Note was withdrawn by Press Note No. 12 (69)LP/79 dated 24-5-1980. According to the petitioner respondent 3 by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 11-11-1981 cancelled the licence 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Press Note the State Government's authority to order installation of roller flour mills below 30 tonnes capacity stood withdrawn on 24-5-1980 and, therefore, he could not have granted licence to the petitioner on 18-3-1981. It is evident that respondent 3 had mistaken the press Note as affecting his statutory power under the order to grant licence for wheat roller flour mills.