SAGARMALL AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If we hold and we must that the executive or any other authority has a duty to act fairly and that the right of a citizen of India to trade enshrined in Article 19 (1). (g) of the Constitution is not to be subjected merely to the disadvantage or inconvenience of another individual, the writ application before the us under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed in Annexures 11 and 12, directing the petitioner to shift the rice huller and refusing to renew his milling licence shall, for the reasons to follow succeed.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a licence (Annexure-1) under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) in 1974 for milling of rice locating it at Ran-pur (Banpur?) in the district of Puri. The licence was renewed from time to time. After giving prior intimation, to the Sub-divisional Officer, Nayagarh and the Collector. Puri. the petitioner shifted the huller from plot No. 401/2129 to plot No. 414 at a distance of only 14 feet as plot No. 401 was allotted to his brother in a family partition. This shifting was in accordance with the terms of the licence for locating the huller at Banpur arid no material has been placed before us that licence had been granted to instal the huller only on plot No. 401. For this shifting, a proposal had been made for prosecution of the petitioner under Sec-tion 8 (3) of the Act, but was dropped. The Sub-divisional Officer had suspended the licence of the petitioner, as per Annexure-,7 for contravention of the provision made under Section 8 (3) (e) of the Act. The petitioner appealed to the Collector, Puri, against the order of suspension and brought to his notice the fact that the licence had been renewed for the years 1976 and 1977 inspite of the shifting to the knowledge of the appropriate authorities. The petitioner had also made a representation to the State Government. These facts are disclosed in Annexures 8 and 9. During the pendency of the petitioner's appeal his licence was renewed till the end of the year 1980. The Civil Supplies Officer, Puri. advised the Sub-divisional Officer, Nayagarh that since the licence was renewed up to the year 1980 on the existing location of the huller for which opinion had been expressed by the Government Pleader not to institute any prosecution and the State Government had been liberal in regularising unlicensed mills would be desirable to issue heence to the petitioner who had been running the mill from the year 1976 on plot No. 414 to which it had been shifted and he intimated to him about the order of the Collector allowing renewal of the licence in favour of the petitioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 100/-on him. It has been submitted before us fey Mr. Rath for the petitioner that the petitioner paid the penalty although not liable in law in order to avoid further litigation. The Collector wrote to the Sub-divisional Officer (vide Annexure 10-A) that the mill of the petitioner was not newly established but was an old one functioning since 1076 and as such, the matter could be regularised according to the Government instructions conveyed in Order No. 361976 dt. September 14, 1981. The Sub-divisional Officer lifted the order of cancellation of licence and directed "its renewal. The licence was renewed up to Dec. 31, 1981 and thereafter up to Dec. 35, 1982, even after the shifting of the huller to plot No. 414.

(3.) The Sub-divisioal Officer (opposite party No. 3) visited the mill with-out any notice to the petitioner on the complaint of Shri Durga Madhab Meha-patra, a co-villager of the petitioner and communicated to the petitioner as per Annexure-11 that the complainant was facing difficulties due to the running of the holler and directed that it should be shifted from the spot within fifteen days, failing which the licences-would be can-celled. In Annexure-11 even the name of the complainant had not been disclosed and what were his difficulties had not been expressed. Thus a "vague notice had been given to the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the Collector and was intimated as per Annexure-12. that the Collector had ordered that the licence of the petitioner would not be rpnewed in view of the local objection; Thereafter, the Inspector of Supplies as per An-nexure-14, has directed the petitioner to stop the mill as his licence has not been renewed for this year, failing which action will be taken against him.