Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P.N. SHINGHAL AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Chandrakant Saha and others etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 1135-1155, 1544-1758, 1759-1949 of 1977; 592-607, 849-862 and 1898-1908 and 1597-1606 of 1978, 955 and 966 of 1977; 1222 of 1977 and 4-176 and 2359 of 1978; 967, 1128 of 1977, 314-591, 901-950 etc. 3063-3081 of 1978, 1223-1526 of 1977, 177-313 etc. 2358 of 1978, 2326-2430 of 1977, 1807-1869 etc. of 1978, 2953-2968 and 2472A-2472B of 1978 and 823, 3514-3574, etc. 3766, 3801 and 3786-3788 of 1978, D/- 14-9-1978.
WITH
Hardhan Das etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
WITH
Shyamalal Kumar Roy and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
WITH
Ashok Kumar Paul and others etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Durga Prasad Agarwal and others etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Ganguli, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1135-1155, 1544-1758, 2274-2325 & 966/77, 3622-3641/78, 1898-1908/78, 967-1128/77, 314-591, 901-950, 2240-2294, 2367-2398, 3063-3081 of 1978; Mr. N. R. Choudhury, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2216-2220, 592-607, 312-318, 2472A, 2472B/78, 849-862/78, 1239-1312, 1584-1592, 1737-1759, 1870-1887, 2296-2318, 2392-2472, 2937-2951, 3380-3464 of 1978; Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (in 1759-1949), Mr. D. P. Mukherjee, Advocate (in All), M/s. R. P. Roy and A. K. Ganguli, Advocates (in 1759-1949), for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1759-1949 and 955 of 1977; Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1952-1991/77, 1313-1542, 2112-2203, 3131-3340 of 1978; Mr. M. M. Kshatriya, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1993-2199 of 1977; Mr. S. S. Ray, Sr. Advocate (in 1597-1606 and 1760 -1806), Dr. Debi Pal, Sr. Advocate (in 1759, 2125-2128/78), M/s. S. R. Agarwal, A. T. Patra and Praveen Kumar, Advocates (in All Writ Petitions except 2125-2128) (in 2125-2128/78, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate), for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1597-1606/78, 1760-1806 and Applicant/Intervener in W. P. Nos. 1759-1949/77 and in W. P. Nos. 1222/77 and 2125-2128 of 1978; Mr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate (in 1223-1526, 1222/77 and 4), Mr. Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1222/77 and 4/78. 1223-1526, 5-176, 177-313, 871-900, 2319-2358 of 1978; Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Petitioner in W. P. No. 2359 of 1977; Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2326-2430/77 and 1807-1869 of 1978; Mr. D. P. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 609-821, 979-1237, 1543-1583, 1956-2111, 2810-2936, 2953-2968, 2986-2998 of 1978; Mr. Majumdar, Advocate, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 823, 3514-3574, 824-826, 975, 1617-1627, 1628-1725, 1915-1942, 2366, 2610, 3088 and 3576/78 and 3766 of 1978; Mr. Amlan Ghosh, Advocate & Mr. Ravinder Bahl, Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2231-2234, 2235-2236, 2237-2238, 2475 & 2476, 2975-2985/78, 3744-3768, 3801 & 3840 of 1978; Mr. Rathin Das, Advocate, for Petitioner in W. P. No. 3465 of 1978; Mr. J. M. Khanna, Advocate, for Petitioner in W. P. Nos. 3466-3513 of 1978; Mr. S. K. Bisharia Advocate, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 3786-3788 of 1978; Mr. S. N. Kacker, Solicitor General (in W. Ps. 1135, 1759, 1943 and 2216/77), Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate, for Respondents in W. P. Nos. 1898-1908, 177-313, 1584-1592, 1313-1542/78 and for Respondent No. 1 in rest of the W. P. excepting in W. P. Nos. 1222 and 2359 of 1978; Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate with him), for other appearing Respondents in all W. Ps. excepting 2359 of 1978; Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (in W. P. 2359), Mr. S. S. Reyin, Sr. Advocate 316 (in W. P. 2216), Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate (in 2359 and 2216), Mr. Shib Kumar Shahu, Advocate (in 1949), Mr. P. Keshava Pillai, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5 in W. P. 2359/78 and Applicant Intervener in 1759/77, 1949/77 and 2216; Mr. P. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (in W. P. 955). Mr. D. Mookerjee, Sr. Advocate (in 1759), Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, Advocate, for the Applicant/Intervener in W. Ps. Nos. 1759-1949 and 955 of 1977.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 and 301 - Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 - Operating mills amount to complete destruction of fundamental right - Employment to rural population - Court propose to take up writ petitions - Main contention petitioners has been that there are as many as husking mills owned and operated by various persons in State of West Bengal and each mill employs persons - Provisions of Act which require petitioners to take licenses for operating mills amount to complete destruction of fundamental right petitioners to carry on business and provisions further contain unguided and unanalyzed powers so as to violate provisions of Article - In all other writ petitions arguments put forward by petitioners in aforesaid petitions have been completely adopted – Held, It was next argued that contain unguided and unanalyzed power and suffer from vide of excessive delegation of powers – In first place in view language section with which existing rice hullers concerned question of un canalized powers being conferred on licensing authority does not arise - It would be seen that once an application is received by licensing officer he shall grant license on such conditions as he may impose - Statute does not leave any discretion in licensing officer to grant or to refuse to grant license - He has mandatory duty to perform and therefore there is no question of licensing officer having been conferred unrestricted or unanalyzed powers Act - It was however submitted that although grant of license is mandatory subsection this can be granted only if permit has been granted Section - There is no pleading before this Court that any petitioners was not granted permits at all - Even so as indicated above sub section contains as many as six guidelines for grant of permit - Power is to be exercised by such high authority Central Government - Furthermore Sec an appeal lies against decision of licensing office Section to an appellate officer nominated by Central Government - Petitions dismissed
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J. :- A large batch of writ petitions has been filed in this Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended in 1968, on the ground that some of the provisions of the aforesaid Act are clearly violative of Articles 14, 19 and 301 of the Constitution of India. Serious objection appears to have been taken to those provisions of the Act which require the petitioners who are owners of Rice Husking Mills or Rice Hullers to take out a licence for husking rice.
2. We propose to take up the writ petitions of Bijoy Kumar Majhi (Writ Petitions Nos. 1759-1949 of 1977). The main contention of the petitioners has been that there are as many as 18,000 husking mills owned and operated by various persons in the State of West Bengal and each mill employs 4 or 5 persons. The provisions of the Act which require the petitioners to take licences for operating the mills amount to a complete destruction of the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on business and the provisions further contain unguided and uncanalised powers so as to violate the provisions of Article 14. In all the other writ petitions the arguments put forward by the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions have been completely adopted.
3. Writ Petitions Nos. 1135 to 1155 of 1977 have been filed by Chandra Kanta Saha and others where the petitioners have merely challenged the validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977 dated 9-8-1977 which has repealed portions of Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) West Bengal Second Amendment Act of 1974 and deleted Section 6A of that Act.
4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by counsel for the parties, it may be necessary to give a brief history of the legislation on the subject. It appears that as far back as 1958 Parliament after a declaration as required by the Constitution passed the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act). The Act was passed on 18th May, 1958. It would appear from the object and reasons of the Act that the main purpose for passing the Act was to preserve and protect the indigenous and hand-pounding industry of rice growers so as to provide sufficient employment to rural population. The other object was to ensure the modernisation of conventional type of rice mills with a view to producing more rice of better quality and nutritive value. Section 2 of the Act contains a declaration which may be extracted thus :
"Declaration as a to expediency of control by the Union : It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the rice milling industry".
This declaration was obviously made as required by Entry 52, List I, Sch. VII of the Constitution. In other words, Parliament declared that it was in public interest to regulate the working of the Rice Milling Industry and accordingly it purported to legislate under the power contained in Schedule VII, List I, Entry 52 read with Entry 24 of List II. In these circumstances, there cannot be any question of the incompetency of Parliament to legislate on the subject-matter of the Act nor was any such question raised before us.
5. The Act of 1958 before its amendment did not include the rice hullers and was completely innocuous so far the writ petitioners are concerned. It was after the amendment of 1968 that the rice hullers or the owners of the rice husking mills have come forward to this Court with the grievance that the Act is constitutionally invalid. The rice millers have not filed any petition assailing any provisions of the Act of 1958. Section 3 (a) of the Act of 1958 defines a defunct rice mill and Section 3 (b) defines an existing rice mill. The present S. 3 (d) was substituted by the Amendment Act 29 of 1968 and reads as follows :-
"; Milling rice with its grammatical variation, means-
(i) recovering rice or any produce thereof from paddy;
(ii) polishing rice,
with the aid of power."
The questio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
