The discretion to grant or refuse to grant a license is vested absolutely in the respondents and especially in respondent No. 2 who is the Licensing Authority under the said rules. If that be so, it is for that authority to decide the application without waiting for any direction of any other authority i.e. in this case the concurrence of the Government of India or for any other extraneous material.

Headnote:
WHEAT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (LICENSING AND CONTROL) ORDER, 1957 - SECTION 3, 10 - INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951 - SECTION 3(C), 3(D), 10, 10-A, 11, 11-A, 13, 29-B - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - The discretion to grant or refuse to grant a license is vested absolutely in the respondents and especially in respondent No. 2 who is the Licensing Authority under the said rules. If that be so, it is for that authority to decide the application without waiting for any direction of any other authority i.e. in this case the concurrence of the Government of India or for any other extraneous material.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners are the registered partnership firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, having their registered office at Nagpur and were desirous of establishing and installing a roller flour mill at Jalgaon in response to a press note issued by the State Government inviting applications for setting up a roller flour mill of a capacity of 30 tons per day, made an application to the State of Maharashtra on October 12, 1979 and sought the requisite permission to install a new roller flour mill.
Finding of the Court:

The petitioners unit according to the averments in the petition having employed less than 50 staff and labour in number is not governed by the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and they are not obliged to take out a licence under the provisions of the said Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the unit of the petitioners is an industrial undertaking and, therefore, whether all other notifications relied upon by the learned Counsel are attracted or not? 2. Whether the petitioners are required to take out a license under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951? 3. Whether the respondents were justified in deferring or delaying the grant of license to the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The unit of the petitioners is not an industrial undertaking as defined in section 3(d) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and therefore, the petitioners are not required to take out a license under the said Act. 2. The petitioners are not required to take out a license under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, as their unit does not attract the provisions of the said Act. 3. The respondents were not justified in deferring or delaying the grant of license to the petitioners as they had no power to do so under the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957.
Final Decision: The petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - R.S. BHONSALE, J.:---This petition filed by petitioners Khandesh Roller Flour Mills under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of an order against the respondent No. 2 who is the Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Maharashtra and is also the Licensing Authority under the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 to grant a milling license as per the application made by the petitioners on September 16, 1980 in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.

2. This petition raises an important question as to whether an authority which is vested with the discretion to exercise certain powers should act under the direction of any other authority, in this case the Government of India, for disposing of the application for granting a milling license under the said order.

3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by Shri V.R. Manohar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the relevant facts which lie in a narrow compass can be briefly referred to. The petitioners are the registered partnership firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, having their registered office at Nagpur and were desirous of establishing and installing a roller flour mill at Jalgaon in response to a press note issued by the State Government inviting applications for setting up a roller flour mill of a capacity of 30 tons per day, made an application to the State of Maharashtra on October 12, 1979 and sought the requisite permission to install a new roller flour mill. At this stage, it must be mentioned that the Government of India had imposed a ban on installation of new roller flour mills earlier to the issuance of this press note which was issued in September 1979. However, the Government of India took a decision and decided to relax its ban and allow the setting up of a roller flour mill plant of a capacity of 30 tons on certain conditions. After the petitioners filed this application, the respondent No. 1 by communication dated January 29, 1980 granted such permission to the petitioners subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. As per his permission, certain conditions were imposed and these conditions may be referred to at this stage since it is the case of the petitioners that notwithstanding their having complied with all the conditions, the respondents have either unjustifiably delayed in issuing the milling license or have not taken decision for reasons which are not germane to issuing of such license. According to the communication dated January 29, 1980 petitioners were informed that their application for permission to install a new roller flour mill within the district of Jalgaon was granted subject to the following conditions :---

(i) The milling capacity of the unit to be installed by you shall not exceed 30 tonnes per day;

(ii) The unit shall not be installed within the limits of a municipal town having a population of 5 lakhs or more and also within the limits of the Bombay Metropolitan Regional Development Authority;

(iii) Installation of the unit shall be completed within a period of 12 months.

There are further ancillary conditions, such as, that land for the purpose of milling must be secured within 60 days and the proof of acquiring such a and must be furnished to the Government within 15 days; that the plans for installing such a mill must be finalised within a period of 120 days. There were other conditions which are not necessary to be referred to since there is no dispute about it excepting to mention that in the last paragraph No. 5, it was specifically stated that after installation of the mill in accordance with the prescribed terms and conditions, the petitioners have to obtain the necessary license under Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957.

4. The petitioners further averred in their petition that in pursuan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document