K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated April 10, 1989 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaunpur and the order dated October 17, 1989 passed on behalf of the Director of Industries, U.P. Kanpur; (b) issue writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent to treat the petitioner's provisional registration certificate dated January 20, 1989 as continuing and/or to command the respondents to issue a fresh provisional registration certificate in favour of the petitioner; (c) issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent to issue the final registration certificate in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance of the actual installation of the Vanaspati Ghee manufacturing plant by the petitioner; (d) issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain an industrial licence under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 nor to take any action against the petitioner for not obtaining licence; (e) issue any other and/or further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (f) award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner".
(2.) Short of unnecessary details, the petitioner wants to deal in the manufacture of vanaspati ghee and for the aforesaid purpose, a unit is proposed to be set up at village Naupur, Tahsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur. In this connection, a provisional certificate dated January 20, 1989, contained in Annexure 3 attached with the writ petition, was issued. On the basis of the provisional registration certificate a unit is entitled to several benefits and the certificate facilitates the actual installation of the unit and grant of final registration certificate as is evident from the allegation made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. It appears that the provisional registration certificate granted to the petitioner has been cancelled through the order dated April 10, 1989 contained in Annexure '5' attached with the writ petition. The aforesaid order dated April 10, 1989 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it does not specify the reasons for cancellation and it has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated October 17, 1989 contained in Annexure '12' attached with the writ petition. The ground for attacking the aforesaid communication dated October 17, 1989 has been mentioned in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the writ petition. The main grounds taken by the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner is neither a factory as contemplated by Section 3(c) of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and that the petitioner's proposed unit is not an 'industrial undertaking' as defined in the aforesaid Act of 1951. Therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to apply for a licence before the Government of India. The relevant allegations have been made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that in the absence of original registration certificate and due to the communication contained in Annexure '12', the petitioner shall be greatly prejudiced and handicapped in installing the proposed unit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure'5' deserves to be quashed as the aforesaid order was passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also stressed that the communication contained in Annexure '12' does not apply to the petitioner's unit as it is neither a factory nor 'industrial undertaking' contemplated by the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In this connection our attention was invited to the project report mentioned at page 82 of the paper book which indicates that there were only 41 persons working in the unit.;