MAULANA AYUB ALI BARBHUYIA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was granted permission under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act) to establish a new rice mill at Srikuna Daily bazaar. This had to be done as per the permit dated 12.10.79 within a period of six months from the date of issue of the permit. Being not able to establish the mill within the time allowed, the Petitioner approached the Government to extend the time and the Government was pleased to do so by the communication dated 7.1 81 for another period of six months with effect from the date of issue of the letter. To his dismay however the Petitioner received a communication dated 5.3.81 requesting him to select a suitable alternative site as Respondents 6 and 7 were allowed to retain the "Ganesh Rice Mill" said to have been installed at Srikona daily bazaar. The Petitioner has felt aggrieved at this communication links -much as it virtually amounts to cancellation of the earlier permit, according to him, which has seriously prejudiced him as he has installed the rice mill at the earlier location.

(2.) SHRI Goswami who has appeared for the Petitioner has challenged the communication dated 5.3.81 on two grounds: (1) that the Act has conferred no power to cancel a permit, or to alter any condition of a permit; and (2) the order was had in having been issued without hearing the Petitioner. A reference to the provisions of the Act would bear the first submission of Shri Goswami inasmuch as under Section 7 of the Act, a license which is granted under Section 6 of the Act (whereas granting of permit is controlled by Section 5 of the Act) can alone be revoked, suspended or remanded under Section 7. Faced with this position, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the communication to select alternative suitable site was only a request which the Petitioner might or might not have complied with. There is not much to commend this submission as such requests coming from authorities are to be treated as directions. Really, a reference to para 7 of the affidavit -in -opposition filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5 shows that the request was taken to be a direction to select a suitable alternative site. It was then, contended that by the impugned order no change in the location of the rice mill was intended by the authorities as they only wanted selection of an alternative site. This submission top has no force because even though the permit speaks of location, that cannot be read do hors of selection of a particular site in the locality. Even the change of site after the same had been approved of does not seem permissible under the provisions of the Act, more so, in the present case, as the Petitioner had already installed his rice mill at the location where be was permitted to do so.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the Petition is allowed and the offending part of the impugned order is quashed. The Respondents are directed to dispose of the application for license by the Petitioner filed on 11.4.81, vide Annexure -B to the affidavit -in -reply, in accordance with the principle laid down in this regard by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. It would be for the consideration of the authorities as to what stand they would take the prayer of Respondents 6 and 7 in so far as the Ganesh Rice Mill is concerned, bearing in mind the requirements of Section 5(4) of the Act.