RADHESHYAM KALBALIA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER OF DUMKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for clashing the appellate order dated 4-9-1962, passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division in S. P. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1962-63 (Annexure F) dismissing an appeal filed against the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Dumka, dated 16-8-1962 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of licence under Section 6 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Act XXI of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) At Madhupur there was a rice mill named Agarwala Factory of which the petitioner was the managing partner. The petitioner alleged that sometime in October, 1960, the same mill was shifted to another place known Jarmundi about fifteen miles away and named as Shiva Parvati Rice Mills and that it started working there from 13-11-1960. The petitioner being under the impression that notwithstanding the change of place and the change of name the new rice mill was, for the purposes of the Act, same as the old rice mill, applied for licence to the Subdivisional Officer for running the old rice mill under Section 6 of the Act. The Subdivisional Officer, however, by his order dated 13-3-1961 rejected the application holding that the rice mill at Jarmundi, namely Shiva Parvati Rice Mill, was a new mill started after the coming into force of the Act and that consequently the petitioner should obtain permission from the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act. Against that order of the Subdivisional Officer the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division which was disposed of on the 28th September, 1961 (Annexure D), The learned Commissioner held that the mill started at Jarmundi was a new rice mill and not an old rice mill which was originally located at Madhupur, but he thought that even for the new rice mill a permit under Section 5 of Act was not required inasmuch as the Act came into force in Bihar only on 15-11-1960. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Sub-divisional Officer for local enquiry with a view to ascertain whether the mill at Jarmundi was started on 13-11-1960, prior to the coming into force of the Act as alleged. But when the matter was sent on remand to the Subdivisional Officer, it was noticed that the Commissioner had committed an error as regards the date of the coming into force of the Act. It was found that the Act came into force in Bihar on 22-4-1959. Therefore, the Subdivisional Officer held that the new rice mill was bound to obtain permit under Section 5 of the Act inasmuch as it was started after the coming into force of the Act, and his order was upheld on appeal by the succeeding Commissioner on 4-9-1962.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Sinha for the petitioner is that an old rice mill does not become a new rice mill merely because of change of its location, or even change of its name, so long as the ownership remains the same and the machineries and other equipments of the old rice mill have been taken intact and erected at the new place.