RAMAPPALA NAIDU Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven petitioners are the owners of the Rice & Flour Mills at variousplaces in Visakbapatnam district. They obtained licences under S. 6 (4) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 1958, for short, the Act. The licence is operative only for one year. Under Section 6 grant of licence is required by the owner of an existing rice Mill in respect of which a permit was granted under Section 5 is effective. Under sub-section (4) of Section 6 it is provide d that the licence under Section 6 shall be valid for the period specified therein and may be renewed from time to time for such pariod and on payment of such fees and on such conditions (including such conditions as to improvements to existing machinery, replacement of existing machinery and use of improved methods of rice milling as may be necessary to eliminate waste, obtain maximum production and improve quality as may be prescribed. The proviso is not necessary for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is two fold in assailing the validity of sub-section (4) of Sec. 6 of the Act. The first contention is that the petitioners are small or marginal persons ekeing out their livelihood by running the mills in order to supplement their income from agriculture. If the imposition of condition for replacement of existing machinery with new machinery is ordered pursuant to the above provision, it would offend their right to livelihood and right to avocation provided under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 1 find no force in this contention. The object of the regulations um'cr the Act is for the smooth running of the mills in accordance with the rules and regulations. If a person wants to establish and run a rice mill he is bound to follow the stipulations and conditions under the Act. The conditions of licence have statutory force and can be modified according to the statute by the competent authority granting licences. Therefore the right to trade or avocation enshrined under Art. 19 (1) fg) is dependent upon the duty to follow the conditions stipulated under the Act. Therefore, a person who obtains a licence is to abide by the conditions of the statute. Therefore, he cannot have, having obtained licence, higher rights than what have been prescribed under the statute. He cannot cut off the branch on which he is sitting. Accordingly, I hold that the imposition of the conditions prescribed will not offend the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitutions. This point has also been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Vizayanagaram Dist. Millers Association vs. District Collector #1 Therefore, this point is no longer Res Integra.

(3.) It in next contended by the leirned counsel for the petitioner that under the unamended provisions for obtaining a licence or renewal no fresh conditions are imposed. But under the Amendment Act 29 of 1968 sub-section (1) was incorporated inserting certain conditions (including such conditions as to improvements to existing machinery, replacement of existing machinery and use of improved methods of rice milling as may be necessary to eliminate waste obtain maximum production and improve quality) as may be prescribed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this amendment will be only prospective in nature i.e., from date the amendment came into force. The petitioners' mills have been existing and are managed by the petitioners even prior to the amedment. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable to the petitioners. I find no force in the contention. Though the petitioners are running the. mills prior to the amendment cannot claim that the amended provisions are not applicable to them. It is only certain amendments were made to the main Act under which the petitioners have obtained the licence. The amended provisions are applicable to the petitioners only when they want to renew the licence and continue the avocation. Therefore the amended Act would continue to be operative from the date the amendment was made and applicable to persons who undertake to continue the rice milling operations and they are bound by the conditions of licence made from time to time. Therefore, though the Act has no 'retrospective effect but prospectively it applies from the date when the renewal sought to be made. In State of J & K vs. T. N. Khosa #2 the Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the marter with regard to retrospective operation of the rules made under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the amended rules are not applicable to the existing employees. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and held that a rule which classifies existing employees for promotional purposes undoubtedly operates on those who entered service before the framing of the rules; but it operates in future in the sense that it governs the future right of promotion of those who are already in service. In the circumstances I hold that the Amendment though has no retrospective effect, the petitioners are bound by the Act. They are bound by the conditions imposed under the Amended Act for replacement of the existing machinery with a view to effect improved methods of rice milling as may be necessary to eliminate waste, obtain maximum production and improve quality. Accordingly, I find no justification in the argument that the amended provisions have no application to the existing industries viz., rice mills. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.