A.P.MISRA, J. - (1.) The petitioners initially have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to rescind their letter dated 30-11-1989 (Annexure-1 to the petition) cancelling the Provisional Registration Certificate and further directing the respondents to grant the Permanent Registration Certificate under the Small Scale Industries Scheme. Then by amendment sought for quashing two subsequent orders passed by respondent No. 2 one dated 14/12/1989 rejecting petitioners' objection and another dated 7-12-1989 relating to the cancellation of the Provisional Registration Certificate and the order dated 16/12/1989 cancelling petitioners' application for grant of permanent registration. Union of India later applied for its impleadment, which was allowed, which also contested claim of the petitioners.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company and petitioner No. 2 is one of the shareholders duly authorised by the resolution of the Company to prosecute the writ petition. Initially this firm was known as M/ s. Lord Krishna Vanaspati Industries, a proprietory concern of Smt. Asha Agarwal which has now been taken over by petitioner No. 1. The said firm applied to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad on 3-5-1988 for the grant of provisional registration under the Small Scale Industries Scheme for establishing unit at Bulandshahar Road, Ghaziabad for the manufacture of Vanaspati Ghee. In the application it was mentioned that the machinery and equipment would approximately cost Rs. 30.9 laks and it would employ less than 49 persons. This application was allowed and provisional registration was granted on 3-5-1988. After the said firm was taken over by the petitioner No. 1 with due intimation and permission from the District Industries Centre a new item "Refined Oil" was also added for the manufacture in the unit. According to the petitioner, the said permission was granted subject to two conditions : firstly the value of the plant and machinery shall not exceed Rs. 35 lacs which is outer limit of the Small Scale Industries Unit; secondly the number of employees shall not exceed 49. Before the expiry of the period of the provisional registration the petitioner No. 1 applied on 30-3-1989 for extension of the provisional registration and the period was extended upto 2-11-1989.
(3.) Suddenly on 18/05/1989, petitioner No. 1 received communication from respondent No. 2 to obtain Industrial Licence under the Industries (Development And Regulations) Act, otherwise the provisional registration will be treated as cancelled. According to the petitioner, at no stage prior to the grant of the provisional registration this condition was ever mentioned by the respondent State of U.P. Thereafter on 1-6-1989 petitioner No. 1 wrote to respondent No. 2 that under the aforesaid Act he was not required to get any licence. On 29-9-1989 petitioner No. 1 applied to respondent No. 2 for extension of the provisional registration for six months with effect from 2-11-1989. On 7/11/1989 petitioner No. 1 applied for the permission of the registration certificate under the Small Scale Industries Scheme. Thereafter on 30-11-1989 petitioner No. 1 received a communication from respondent No. 2 stating that petitioner No. 1 has since failed to obtain the Industrial Licence, the provisional certificate granted to him has been cancelled vide letter dated 30/11/1989. Thereafter on 7/12/1989 petitioner No. l wrote to the respondent No. 2 that Industrial Licence was not required for the petitioner No. 1 under the aforesaid Act. In this letter it was specifically pointed out that the aforesaid two conditions earlier imposed by the respondent, State of U.P., stood complied with as the investment stood below Rs. 35 lacs and the number of workers employed was less than 50. But petitioner No. 1 received no reply. Further reliance was placed by petitioner No. 1 on the letter dated 11-4-1986 in its U.O. Director, P. K. S. Iyer of the Department of Industrial Development (Licencing Policy Section) stating therein that all the Industrial Undertakings having less than 50 workers with the aid of power and 100 workers without the aid of power do not come under the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 and, therefore, there is no legal bar against such undertakings taking up manufacture of any item including the items covered under Schedule IV to the exemption notification of 16/02/1973. According to petitioner No. 1, his unit falls under Schedule IV to the notification dated 16-2-1973. Again reliance was placed by the petitioners on the Notification dated 30/06/1988 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Industry (Department of Industrial Development) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29B(i) of the Act and in supersession of earlier Notification dated 16/02/1973 exempting the application of Industrial Undertakings specified in the Table given from the provisions of Ss. 10, 11, 11-A, 11-B and 13 of the said Act. Petitioners have further relied on the Press Note 14 (1988 Series) dated 3-6-1988 in which it is mentioned "however, if the number of workers employed are less than 50 in any unit, Industrial Licencing provisions will not be applicable.";