VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT HULLER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition calls in ques- tion the order of the collector Vizianaga- ram, in D. Dis. No. 6315/81 dt. 14-7-1911 by and under which the Collector, while renewing rice-milling licences issued to the petitioners under the Rice millirjg Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 upto 31-3-1982, called upon the petitioners to modernise the rice millers before applying for further renewal. The petitioners seek a declaration that Section 6(4)'of the Aet, under which they were asked to moder- nise their rice mills before applying for renewal is unconstitutional. They seek a further direction against the respondent to renew their licences without insisting on the modernise of the single huller type rice mills operated by the petitioners.

(2.) The 1st petitioner-Association comprises of members who run single huller type rice mills in Vizianagaram dis- trict. They operate the rice mills under the licence issued by the District Collector. When, for the year 1982-83, they applied for renewal of their licences, they were asked to modernise their rise mills by attaching single mini shuller to their exis- ting single huller rice mills. As they failed to comply with that direction, the licencse were not renewed. However, under the orders of this Court, they were renewed from time to time so much so all of them hold licences renewed upto 31-3-83 it is the case of the petitioners that it is impossible to carry out the directions of the Collector firstly for the reason that the space available in the existing single huller rice mills is not sufficient to install a single mini sHuller and secondly because a single mini shuller would now cost not less than Rs. 30, 000/-to install and lastly because the single huller rise mills are useful tor hulling small quantities of rice and a single mini shuller is unfit for hulling less than 20 Kgs. of paddy. They also point out that, if mini shuller is installed, the customers, who are mainly cultivators, will suffer loss of the cattle feed, as fine husk and rise bran are not recoverable under by the new process. According to the petitioners the conditions required to be complied with impose an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade and business and thus violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Further, according to the petitioners, this is also not warranted by the provision of Section 6 (4) of the Act.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit, it is asserted that the Government of India has issued instructions for moderinsation of rice mills with a view to increase the output of rice, reduce the percentage of broken rice and minimise the wastage. Tha mill-owners were given sufficiently long time to modernise their rice mills. The Government of India, in its letter No. 16 (Genl) (i)/81 0 & R. I. dated 29-6 81 (Communicated in Ref No. W3/2509/81 dt 4-9-1981 of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies Hyderabad) has granted fime for two more years i. e. upto 29-7-1S83 for modernising the rice mills. This extension of time limit was also made applicable to single huller rice mills engaged in trading activity in Govern- merit of India's letter dated 1 -12-1981 and communicated in Ref W3/4397/81 dated 22-12-1981 of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad. The Single huller rice mill licences were renewed for the year 1981-82 subject to the condition that the rice mills are modernised before the next date of renewal. The petitioners have not availed of this opportunity and are now insisting on the renewal of licences without modernising their rice mills. It is also assert that the modernisation would increase the output of rice about 6%and that even after modernisation, bran and husk would be available and that the attachment of mini-shuller would result in minimising the percentage of broken rice and other wastage.