NIBARAN CHANDRA SAHA Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM - DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY, SHILLONG AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ setting aside and quashing the order passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Supply Department, Shillong, dated 18 -4 -1982 or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to their orders dated 16 -4 -62 and 29 -6 -62, or any other suitable writ.

(2.) THE facts leading up to the filing of this petition may be briefly noticed. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of a rice mill, which was purchased by him in the year 1958, applied for a licence trader the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Central Act 21 of 1958), which was passed by the Parliament and came into force on 22 -4 -59. Section 6 of the Act 21 of 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, requires the owner of an existing rice mill to apply for and obtain a licence for carrying on rice -milling operation in that rice: mill. The petitioner made an application for the grant of a licence on 29 -6 -59. This application was forwarded by the Sub -divisional Officer (Supply), Kokrajhar, opposite party No. 3, with his covering Memorandum to the Joint Director of Supply, Shillong, opposite party No. 2, on 11 -1 -60. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 called for the original documents proving the claim of the petitioner to the grant of a licence. Apparently, the documents required by the Joint Director had not been furnished and the Joint Director accordingly dismissed the application. Against this order of the Joint Director rejecting the application of the petitioner, the latter went up in appeal to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Supply, and, on appeal, the Secretary rejected the appeal on the ground that no convincing documentary proof was furnished to show that the mill had been in operation at any time between 22 -4 -58.

(3.) BEFORE considering the merits of the various contentions of the petitioner in this case, it would be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. Section 3(b) of the Act defines the "existing rice, mill" as follows :