SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Cal) 109

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
ANUMATHI SADHUKHAN - Appellant
Versus
A. K. CHATTERJEE - Respondent
Civ. Revn. Case 346  Of  1951
Decided On : APRIL 11, 1951

Advocates Appeared:
CHANDRA SEKHAR SEN, GANGA NARAYAN CHANDRA, JAGNESHWAR MAJUNDAR, S.DAS

Clauses 9 and 13 of the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, which empowered the cancellation or refusal of a license without assigning any reasons, were invalid as they overstepped the limits of reasonableness and violated the petitioner's right to a fair hearing.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) - WEST BENGAL RICE MILLS CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSES 9, 11, 13 AND 15 - VALIDITY - ORDER PROHIBITING HUSKING OF PADDY AFTER A CERTAIN DATE - VALIDITY - SYSTEM OF GRANTING PERMITS - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a license-holder of three husking mills, challenged the order issued by the opposite party, the Assistant Rice Commissioner, prohibiting the running of husking mills after a certain date without obtaining further orders. The petitioner also challenged the system of issuing permits under the Rice Mills Control Order as violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order prohibiting the running of husking mills was in excess of the powers of the opposite party and must be set aside. The court also held that the system of granting permits as provided by Clause 15 of the Rice Mills Control Order did not infringe Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the order prohibiting the running of husking mills was valid? 2. Whether the system of granting permits under the Rice Mills Control Order was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order prohibiting the running of husking mills was invalid because it was an arbitrary and excessive invasion of the petitioner's right to carry on his trade and business freely under Article 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution. The court also held that Clauses 9 and 13 of the Rice Mills Control Order, which empowered the cancellation or refusal of a license without assigning any reasons, were invalid as they overstepped the limits of reasonableness and violated the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. 2. The court held that the system of granting permits as provided by Clause 15 of the Rice Mills Control Order did not infringe Article 14 of the Constitution because it was a salutory system aimed at controlling the carrying of the trade by the Government and preventing unfair competition and wrongful practices.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order prohibiting the running of husking mills and directed the opposite party to deal with the petitioner's application for a license in accordance with law.

BOSE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order on the opposite party to revoke or cancel the order, dated 7/12/1950, issued under his signature, notifying and directing that husking mill owners were authorised to husk half of their previous permitted quantities upto 14/12/1950 and no husking mill should be run after that date without obtaining further orders, and also for issue of permits for running such husking machines without imposing restrictions on the quantities to foe husked, and for issue of licenses to run the husking machines for husking paddy of the local consumers.

( 2 ) THE petnr. is the license-holder of three husking mills situate at Duttapukur, Beliaghatta and Changdana in the Barasat Sub-Division within the District of 24 Perganas, holding License Nos. 35 A. L. P. , 34 A. L. P. and 31 A. L. P. respectively. Barasat Sub-Division is a deficit and non-procurement area. The petnr. had been carrying on the business of husking paddy at the said mills for about the last 20 years and he was first given licence about the year 1945. Previous to that the petnr. used to obtain permits for husking paddy to the extent of about one thousand maunds per month in each mill. The quantity of paddy permitted to be husked was reduced from time to time until, it is alleged, it has reached the figure of 90 maunds and 75 maunds per month in respect of the first two mills. The petnr. was carrying on the. business of husking paddy and was charging 10 annas only per maund. It is alleged that the sole means of livelihood of the petnr. and his family is the income derived from this husking business.

( 3 ) ON 7-12-1950, the opposite party issued a general notice to the following effect :"oeder further to this office order No. 11181 (8) VII-14, dated 16-10-50, 11848 (10) A. P. VII-V ( 50), dated 2-11-50, and 11971 (10) A. P. VII-7 (50), dated 16-11-50, it is notified for general information that the husking mill owners are authorised to husk half of their previous permitted quantities up to 14-12-1950. No husking Mill should be run after that date (without obtaining further orders ). Sd. A. K. Ghose. for A. R. C. P. Alipore 24-Perganas, dated 7-12 50. "

( 4 ) THIS Notice appears to have been forwarded to several Police Stations of different Sub-Divisions.

( 5 ) BY reason of the said order, the petnr. was compelled to close down his mills with effect from 15-12-1950. It is stated that the petnr. had been seeing the A. R. C. P. , Alipore, and demanding justice from him by cancellation of that Order and by granting of fresh permits and licenses but to no effect. It is stated that the sole business of the petnr. is to husk boiled paddy brought by the customers who are permitted by the authorities to husk their paddy for their own consumption. It is farther stated that the system of issuing these permits is that a list of persons who require the paddy to be husked for their own consumption is prepared in duplicate and the list is carefully checked and verified by the local procurement officer who sends the list for issuing husking permits in favour of such interested persons. In fact, however, it appears from the permits which have been annexed to the petition that these permits are issued in the name of the proprietor of the mill and a list of persons who are to get their paddy husked in these mills is attached to such permit. It is stated that as a result of this Order and the closing down of the husking mills, the price of rice shot up in the locality to a certain extent. It is stated that the restriction imposed by the A. B. C. P. , Alipore, regarding the amount of paddy to be husked is an unreasonable restriction. It is pointed out that the quantity allowed to be husked in the neighbouring District of Nadia and in the Sub-Division of Basirhat is a minimum of about 800 maunds

( 6 ) THE petnr. challenges the Order, dated 7-12-1950, as illegal and in violation of the fundamental right of the petnr. gua













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top