BHASKAR CHANDRA SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a licensee under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short, 'the Act') alleges inaction on the part of the opposite parties to deal with unauthorised milling by opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 in clear contravention of the provisions contained in the Act. It is stated that they are running rice mills without any licence. Petitioner had made grievance before the SubCollector, Kamakhyanagar. The Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Kamakhyangagar has filed affidavit stating that coming to know about unauthorised installation of rice mills, proceedings have been initiated and prosecution reports have been submitted by the Inspector of Supplies (Marketing Inspection), Bhuban under Section 15 of the Act. Opp. party Nos. 4 to 7 take a stand that the petitioner has no existing licence and in any event has no ocus standi to present this writ application. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Hadibandhu Sahu v. State of Orissa, 1996 (1) IJT 262 (OJC No. 8525 of 1995 decided on 9-2-1996). According to them, they are not carrying on any activity which would require licence under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) It is necessary to take note of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. They operate in different areas. The former provision deals with grant of permit to any person or authority for establishment of a new rice mill, or any owner of a defunct, rice mill. The latter provision deals with licence to operate a mill. For grant of permit for establishment of a new rice mill or recommence rice milling operation, as the case may be, an application has to be made to the Central Government. Procedure has been prescribed as to how an application received in that regard is to be dealt with. Sub-section (3) mandates a full and complete investigation in the prescribed manner in respect of several aspects like, number of rice mills operating in the locality and availability of paddy in the locality etc. After a permit is granted in favour of an applicant, owner of an existing rice mill or of a rice mill in respect of which permit has been granted under Section 5 and is effective, may make an application to the licensing officer for grant of a licence for carrying on rice milling in that rice mill. On receipt of the application, the licensing officer can grant licence on such conditions as are deemed proper. It is not in dispute that there is no requirement in Section 6 to invite objection from a rival claimant or any outsider before granting licence. Similar view was expressed in Anadi Charan Rout v. The Collector, Cuttack, AIR 1972 SC 202 (sic). While considering the challenge of a competitor in business attributing infractions under the Act, the Apex Court observed that if any provision has not been complied with, the owner of a rice mill may be exposed to penalty, but the competitor cannot seek to prevent the alleged erring owner from exercising right to carry on business because of the default. The right to carry on business being a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, its exercise is subject only to the restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6)(i) (See The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros, AIR 1971 SC 246). Grievance of an existing licensee or any person affected has been taken care of in Sections 7 and 12, Section 7 deals with revocation, suspension and amendment of licence. It provides that if the licensing authority is satisfied either on a reference made to him or otherwise that a licence granted under Section 6 has been obtained by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, then, without prejudice to any other penalty to which the holder of the licence may be liable under the Act, the licensing officer may, after' giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of showing cause revoke or suspend the licence. The word 'otherwise' appearing in Section 7 would cover the case of a reference made by a rival claimant or competitor. The reference may be in the form of an objection or representation giving relevant details. Section 12 provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of the licensing officer order Section 6 may within the stipulated time prefer an appeal to an appellate officer. who shall be a person nominated in that behalf by the Central Government. Once a rival claimant or competitor is recognised within the ambit of Section 7 to bring to the notice of the licensing officer that the licence should be revoked or suspended, necessarily he is encompassed by the expression 'person aggrieved by a decision of a licensing officer' to file an appeal under Section 12 of the Act.

(3.) Allegation is of running a mill by each of opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 without permission to establish a mill or run a mill. That is how the case at hand is contextually different from Hadibandhu Sahu's case, (1996 (1) IJT 262) (supra). Section 5 requires a permit to be taken for a new or defunct rice mill. Sub-sections (4) and (5) thereof lay down the various factors and conditions which the permit granting authority has to consider before granting permit. Section 6 requires every owner of an existing rice mill to make an application for obtaining a licence. One thing is, however, crystal clear that except proceeding to launch prosecution there is no other provision in the Act to stop the continuance of illegal activities. The Act is intended as a regulatory measure to curb unauthorised milling of rice. It would be, therefore, appropriate if the Legislature thinks of making adequate provision so that a licensed dealer is not prejudicially affected. It is one thing to say that while another person makes an application for a licence to either set up or run a mill the existing licensee has no role to play. But certainly by unauthorised functioning of rice mills his business gets affected. Adequate provision should be made to take care of such a situation. Otherwise a person getting a licence suffers on account of unauthorised operation of rice mills and even if the person making such unauthorised operation is ultimately convicted or penalised that in no way compensates the loss suffered by a person operating with a valid licence. Whether opposite party Nos.4 to 7 are carrying on activities without any license is stated to be subject-matter of judicial proceedings. We express no opinion in that regard. But the authorities should ensure that no rice mill is operated without requisite licence. That would be keeping in line with the spirit of enactment of the Act. The main purpose of passing the Act was to preserve and protect the indigenous and hand-pounding industry of the growers so as to provide sufficient employment to rural population. The other object was to ensure the modernisation of conventional type of rice mills with a view to producing more rice of better quality and nutritive value. (See Chandrakanta Saha v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 314). The provision of Sections 5 and 6 are regulatory in character and the licensing provision is in public interest and is meant to carry out the purposes of the Act. They do not impose any unreasonable restrictions on any person's right to carry on any trade or business, as was held in Chandrakanta's case (supra).