RAM CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been issued by the High Court, on an application, under Article 226 of the Constitutoin, presented by the petitioners. They have asked for a writ in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash the proceedings started by opposite party No. 3, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act LXIII of 1948), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". They have further prayed for a writ of mandamus against opposite party No. 2, who is the Inspector of Factories, Patna Circle, directing him noli to demand any. licence, or licence fee," under the Act, from the petitioners, in respect of their establishment. Cause has been shown against the rule by the Government Advocate on behalf of the opposite party. The Inspector of Factories, Patna Circle, opposite party No. 2, has also sent his replies on the points raised by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that they own an establishment, of Ghanies (manufacture of oil), and Chakkis (flour milling), ill Mahalla Morchapur, police station Chauk, Patna City, in which only two employees work; and; as such it is not a 'factory' within the meaning of the Act, and, therefore, the provisions of the Act do not apply to it.

(3.) Opposite party No. 2, Inspector of Factories, inspected the petitioners' establishment on the 10th April, 1955, and sent to them a copy of his report dated the 19th April, 1955, in which he mentioned that, in course of his inspection, he found on perusal of their licence that it had not been renewed since 1951, which was a contravention of Rule 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950, and, therefore, they should apply for renewal of their licence within five days of the receipt of this letter, after depositing Rs. 62-8-0 (being the renewal fee plus default for the years 1951 to 1955). It was further mentioned in the letter that this inspection report was being sent to the petitioners without prejudice to any legal action that may be taken against them as occupiers of the establishment.