M/s Rama Flour Mills, Jalandhar Cantt vs The State of Punjab and another

M.M. Punchhi, J.—Years ago, a licence to run a Hullar under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation Act, 1958 was granted to one Ram Het, Proprietor of M/s. Rama Flour Mills, Jalandhar Cantt. That licence was got renewed from time to time by Ram Het. Krisban Kumar Bhardwaj Petitioner happens to be the son of Ram Het aforesaid. According to the Petitioner he had effective control over the Mill even during the life time of his father. Ram Het died in 1971. In the year 1978 there was a civil court declaration in favour of the Petitioner vis-a-vis his brother in relation to the Mill. So Krishan Kumar Bhardwaj was the sole proprietor of M/s Rama Flour Mills in place of his father Ram Het. The licence of the Petitioner was renewed from time to time till 1987 when the renewal thereof was denied to him on two grounds, (i) that he was not the owner of the Mill and (ii) that the renewal was sought belatedly. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of non-renewal which was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab. This has necessitated the Petitioner approaching this Court.

Written statement has been filed and the factual position asserted is to contend that the Petitioner is not the recorded owner of M/s Rama Flour Mills.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 3(g) of the Act aforesaid defines the owner as under;

Owner in relation to rice mill means a person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the Rice Mills.

This definition is very wide. A person in ultimate control over the affairs of the Mill is the owner. Since the Petitioner has the effective control over the Rice Mill and he is the one who has asked for the renewal of the licence, we fail to find any plausible ground for the Respondents refusing the renewal of the licence to the Petitioner. The fact remains that the Mill is the same and even if the control has changed hands that would not really affect the situation. Even the belated applying for the renewal will not alter the position because one grace month period was due to the Petitioner. The application for renewal was made somewhat belatedly on account of the ailment of the Petitioner. It is undeniable that the delay is condonable. And in the instant case, we feel that the delay should have been condoned. It appears that the delay was not condoned in favour of the Petitioner because the department was predominantly taking view that he was not the owner of M/s. Rama Flour Mills. According to the family arrangement between the Petitioner and his brother, the Rice Mills belongs exclusively to him after the death of his father. He otherwise also is the owner of M/s Rama Flour Mills as known to the Act.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow the petition and quash the impugned order of non-renewal of the licence and allow the application for renewal of the Petitioner the renewal being valid upto March 31, 1988. The formalities to be completed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner may apply for renewal for the subsequent years when the eventuality arises and in his own name and not necessarily in the name of his father. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Ujagar Singh, J.