SUBHAS SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE object and purpose of the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, for short "the Act," and the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation and Licensing) Rules. 1959, as amended, "the Rules" for short, the power and jurisdiction of the authority to refuse extension of permit granted under Section 5(3) of "the Act" in exercise of its power under Section 5(6) of "the Act" are the subject matters for our consideration in this writ application. We are also to consider the scope of the conditions prescribed under Sub -sections (3) and (4) of Section 5 of "the Act" read with Rule 3 of "the Rules" for granting permits in respect of new rice mills.

(2.) THE petitioner had been granted a permit under Section 5(3) of "the Act" for establishment of a new Rice Mill at Nij Mikirgaon, sub -division Marigaon. District Nowgong, Assam, after due consideration of the relevant conditions set -forth in Section 5 (3) and (4) of "the Act" read with Rule 3 of "the Rules". The petitioner could not establish the Mill within the prescribed period of six months as he did not receive the ordered machinery from the firm. He applied for extension of the period but the Government turned down the prayer but informed him that they would consider the possibility of issuing "a new permit" provided the petitioner selected an alternative suitable site about 1 Kilometer away from the existing site, as the neighbouring millers objected to the installation of the mill. Being aggrieved by the order of refusal as well the order directing him to select a new site when the petitioner had already constructed the building, purchased plant and machinery required for running the mill, has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the impugned orders.

(3.) THE first contention of the petitioners is that once the Govt. had granted a permit under Section 5 of the Act, after making a full and complete investigation necessary for granting a ''permit" enjoined by Section 5(4) of "the Act" read with Rule 3 (2) of "the Rules." the prayer for renewal could not be rejected on the alleged objection of a few rice millers. The permit was subject to renewal, as provided in Section 5(6) of "the Act" and Rule 5 (3) of "the Rules" and, the Govt. could have refused to extend the period on just, reasonable and appropriate ground. In the instant case when the inability to instal the plant and machinery of the mill was beyond the control of the petitioner, the Respondents were bound to renew it in view of the provisions contained in "the Act" and "the Rules" framed thereunder. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya, for the petitioner submits that once the Govt. grant a permit under Section 5(3) of the Act on due fulfilment of the conditions set forth in Section 5(4) of "the Act" and the provisions of Rule 3 (2) it had no jurisdiction to reconsider the factors necessary for granting a permit at the time of renewal. In any view of the matter; refusal to extend the period was illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary. The second limb of attack is that a permit cannot be refused on the objections of the mill owners of the nearby area as the relevant considerations for renewal and/or grant are prescribed in Section 5(3) and 5(4) of "the Act" and Rule 3 (2) of "the Rules," Mr. Lahiri invited attention to Rule 3 (1) (a) in support of his contention that the ground for refusal to renew on the objection of the Millers was an irrelevant consideration and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Govt. should be directed to renew the permit for at least 3 months.