ABDUL RAHIMAN KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is filed against the judgments of the courts below convicting the petitioner under S. 13 (1) read with S. 8 (1) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Act 21 of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) THE charge against the revision petitioner was that he established a new rice mill without obtaining a permit under S. 5 of the Act. . THE petitioner admitted that he did not take out a permit as required by S. 5 of the Act but he contended that since the rice milling operations were carried on by him not for any profit, but for his own private use no such permit was necessary. Though the courts below found that the petitioner established the rice mill for his own use, they took the view that a permit under S. 5 of the act was necessary for the establishment of the mill.

(3.) WE entertain no doubt that the Act comes under Entry 52 in List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Entry 52 in List I reads: "industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. " The question arises what is the connotation of the term'industry' in Entry 52 List I. The interpretation contended for by the petitioner that 'industries' in Entry 52 List I should be restricted to those which cater to the needs of the public and which are worked for profit cannot be accepted.