AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners in all these writ petitions are carrying on the business of rice milling by way of rice milling industry within the limits of various Gram Panchayats. In WP No.9939 of 1997, it is stated, Respondent 3 therein, Narsannapet Gram Panchayat, initially issued a Notification No. 152 of 1995 dated 28-11 -1995 fixing the licence fee for various businesses and trades being carried on within its jurisdiction. The said notification is stated to have come into force with effect from 1-4-1996. As per item 79 of the said notification, the rates of licence fee payable for various individual components pertaining to the rice milling industry have been specified dependant upon the horse power employed for running the processes in the said components. According to the petitioners different rates of licence fee have been prescribed for different components of the rice milling machinery such as Sieves, Elevator, Blower, Paddy cleaner, and jute press. The petitioners in WP No.9939 of 1997 characterise the said prescription for each of the components of a rice milling industry as an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of respondent 3.
The State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 16, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Relief (PTS.III) Department dated 10-1-1996 containing Rules relating to the levy of licence fee for grant of permission in respect of machinery and manufacturing plants driven by electrical power/steam water or mechanical. These Rules stipulate the conditions for grant of licence and for fee thereof, for installations of any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by the aforesaid stipulated forms of energy. These Rules has effected an upward revision of the licence fee being collected till then. The revision being very steep, the petitioners are aggrieved and they have assailed the validity of the Rules contained in the said Government Order. The challenge to the said G.O.Ms.No.16, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Relief (PTS.III) Department dated 10-1-1996 is common to all the writ petitions.
Inter alia, it is contended that the Rules made by the State Government in purported exercise of powers available, u/s 268 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as contained in the said Government Order do not apply to the industries and processes of the petitioners which are existing industries and the language of the Rules, in particular of Rule 1, clearly discloses that the rules apply only in respect of installation of any machinery or manufacturing plant which clearly evidences an intent to be applicable to industries and manufacturing units which come into existence on and subsequent to the date of the Rules i.e., 10-1-1996.
There is an additional contention urged in these writ petitions viz,, that the industries herein being rice milling industries and as such coming within the ambit of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (the 1958 Act), a Central piece of Legislation, any State Legislation covering this field would be incompetent in view of Entry 52 of List I read with Entry 24 of List 2 of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Entry 52 of List 1 reads as under:
"Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest."
Entry 24 of List 2 read as under:
"Industries subject to the provisions of Entries 7 and 52 of List I."
As is apparent from the above enumeration of fields of Legislation in the Union and the State Lists in the Constitution and having regard to the hierarchical nature of availability of legislative powers in view of Article 246 of the Constitution such Legislative power inhering in the State as could be traceable to Entry 24 of List 2 would be eclipsed, in a circumstance, where a Federal Legislation exists referable to the exercise of Legislative power under Entry 52 of List 1. The Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 is a Federal Legislation referable to Entry 52 of List 1.
An analysis of 1958 Act discloses the following:
(a) that it is a Central piece of legislation referable to Entry 52 of List 1 of the VII Schedule;
(b) that Section 2 contains the declaration as to the expedience in public interest that the Union should take under its control the rice milling industry;
(c) that Section 4 enables the appointment of Licencing Officers and the Central Government to define the territorial limits for exercise of powers by such officers.
(d) Section 5 sets out the substance and procedure for grant of permit in respect of new and defunct rice mills, and sub-section (5) thereof specifies the authorities and Co-operative Societies which are entitled to preferential consideration in the matter of grant of permits.
(e) that Section 6 sets out the procedure for making of an application for grant of licence;
(f) other provisions of the Act set out the powers of the inspection, returns to be filed by the owners of the rice mills, appeals against the decisions of the licensing authorities, the penalties ordained, provisions as to confiscation of plant and machinery, specification of the Courts having jurisdiction and other house keeping provisions including Section 22 power to make rules, and power granted to the Central Government.
(g) that Section 24 ordains that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any rice mill owned by Government.
As is apparent from the aforesaid provisions of the 1958 Act, having due regard to the declaration of expedience set out in Section 2 thereof, the whole of the Legislative field of Entry 24 of List-2 to the extent concerned with the rice milling industry is pre-empted and eclipsed by the superior Legislation viz., the 1958 Act referable to Entry 52 of List 1. The States legislative field referable to Entry 24 of List 2 thus pro tanto stands eclipsed during the currency of operation of the 1958 Act.
The power of the State to legislate in respect of an area pertaining to Rice Milling Industry traceable to Entry 24 of List I would thus be a field that has been overborne by the existing Legislation viz., the 1958 Act, The Hingir-rampur Coal Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Orissa and Others, , State of Orissa Vs. M.A. Tulloch and Co., , Baijnath Kadio Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , D.K. Trivedi v. Gujarat AIR 1986 SC 1323.
Collin Howard in the Australian Federal Constitutional Law succinctly stated the principle of reading down in the following terms:
"Reading down puts into operation the principle that so far as it is reasonably possible to do so, Legislation should be construed as being within power. It has the practical effect that where an Act is expressed in language of a generality which makes it capable, if read literally, of applying of matters beyond the relevant legislative power the Court will construe it in a more limited sense so as to keep it within power."
On an analysis of the pro tanto abrogation and paramount occupation of the State''s legislative field by the 1958 Act, and in accordance with settled principles of interpretation that ordain wide legislative phraseology to be restrictively construed so as to be in conformity with constitutional requirements of legislative Competence. The Hindu Womens Rights To Property Act 1937 (AIR 1947 FC 72); The Mysore State Electricity Board Vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. and Others, , it needs be held that the wide and open textured expressions occurring in Sections 119, 120 and 127 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Panchayat Raj Act), relating to the regulatory provisions in respect of the need to obtain licences for purposes notified and specified by the Gram Panchayat, the requirement of making applications for construction establishment or installation of factory, workshop, or workplace in which steam or other power is to be employed or requirements of obtaining licences and permissions u/s 127 of the Panchayat Raj Act are all inapplicable and do not extend to the rice milling industry. As a logical corollary of such restrictive interpretation of the substantive provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, it must be held that notwithstanding the broad grant of rule making power u/s 268 of the Act, such a power would not enure to making rules, for regulation including by way of requirement of obtaining licenses, in respect of rice milling industry, since this field too should be taken to have been overborne pre-empted and eclipsed, by the provisions of the 1958 Act.
The Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 has been repealed by the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Repeal Act, 1997. However, as on the date of issue of the proceedings dated 28-11-1995 by the Narasannapeta Gram Panchayat (a state of facts relevant only to Writ Petition No,9939 of 1997) and as on the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.16, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Relief (PTS.III) Department dated 10-1-1996, the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 was in force and the State Legislative field referable to Entry 24 of List 2 was pre-empted and eclipsed by operation of Entry 52 of List 1 read with the provisions of the 1958 Act. Consequently, neither the notification of the Gram Panchayat dated 28-11-1995 nor the provisions of the above Government Order could operate to regulate the rice milling industry as being without a foundation in legislative authority.
In the result, any demand for licence fee made or other processes issued by the respondents in these writ petitions founded on either the Gram Panchayat Notification dated 28-11-1995 in Writ Petition No.9939 of 1997 or on the basis of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.16, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Relief (PTS.III) Department dated 10-1-1996 would be invalid ab initio and inoperative.
In the view that I have taken, the other contentions urged are not necessary to be adjudicated. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.