POOJA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner No. 2 is one of its Directors. They seek a declaration that the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licences) Order, 1984 are not applicable to the petitioner, and the respondent Collector has no authority under the provisions of the said Order to direct them to shift their place of business to the Principal Market Yard of the Market Committee at Katra, Patna City.

(2.) The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of bread, known by its brand name 'hakun Bread'. For manufacturing bread, they purchase and store flour (maida), sugar and edible oil, such storage is not for sale but for the purpose of consumption for manufacturing another commodity i.e. bread which is not a specified commodity in Schedule I of the Control Order. The petitioners contend that not being engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of a specified trade article, they cannot be called 'dealer' within the meaning of said Control Order. Petitioner No. 1, however, applied for a licence under the said Order in the year 1987 when it was establishing its industry, under a wrong advice. A provisional wholesale licence, being licence No. 3/89, was granted on 16-5-89 with respect to food grains and edible oils. A provisional retail licence being licence No. 8/89 was also granted on the same day with respect to coal and sugar. In the body of the licence it was mentioned that the commodities specified therein were meant only for storage. According to the petitioner the commodities in question being essential to the manufacture of bread, it is necessary to purchase and also store the same but such storage not being for the purpose of sale, it does not come within the purview of clause-2(e) of the Control Order. Not being a dealer and the said Control Order not being applicable to them, the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue any direction under the Control Order, asking them to shift their business to another place.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the petitioners' case as made out in the petition submitted that the issue is covered by two Bench decisions of this Court in M/s. Jamshedpur Beverages v. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) East Cri C 389 and M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) Pat LJR 851.