Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for clashing the appellate order dated 4-9-1962, passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division in S. P. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1962-63 (Annexure F) dismissing an appeal filed against the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Dumka, dated 16-8-1962 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of licence under Sec. 6 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Act XXI of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. At Madhupur there was a rice mill named Agarwala Factory of which the petitioner was the managing partner. The petitioner alleged that sometime in October, 1960, the same mill was shifted to another place known Jarmundi about fifteen miles away and named as Shiva Parvati Rice Mills and that it started working there from 13-11-1960. The petitioner being under the impression that notwithstanding the change of place and the change of name the new rice mill was, for the purposes of the Act, same as the old rice mill, applied for licence to the Subdivisional Officer for running the old rice mill under Sec. 6 of the Act. The Subdivisional Officer, however, by his order dated 13-3-1961 rejected the application holding that the rice mill at Jarmundi, namely Shiva Parvati Rice Mill, was a new mill started after the coming into force of the Act and that consequently the petitioner should obtain permission from the competent authority under Sec. 5 of the Act. Against that order of the Subdivisional Officer the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division which was disposed of on the 28th September, 1961 (Annexure D), The learned Commissioner held that the mill started at Jarmundi was a new rice mill and not an old rice mill which was originally located at Madhupur, but he thought that even for the new rice mill a permit under Sec. 5 of Act was not required inasmuch as the Act came into force in Bihar only on 15-11-1960. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Sub-divisional Officer for local enquiry with a view to ascertain whether the mill at Jarmundi was started on 13-11-1960, prior to the coming into force of the Act as alleged. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Sub-divisional Officer for local enquiry with a view to ascertain whether the mill at Jarmundi was started on 13-11-1960, prior to the coming into force of the Act as alleged. But when the matter was sent on remand to the Subdivisional Officer, it was noticed that the Commissioner had committed an error as regards the date of the coming into force of the Act. It was found that the Act came into force in Bihar on 22-4-1959. Therefore, the Subdivisional Officer held that the new rice mill was bound to obtain permit under Sec. 5 of the Act inasmuch as it was started after the coming into force of the Act, and his order was upheld on appeal by the succeeding Commissioner on 4-9-1962. 3. The main contention of Mr. Sinha for the petitioner is that an old rice mill does not become a new rice mill merely because of change of its location, or even change of its name, so long as the ownership remains the same and the machineries and other equipments of the old rice mill have been taken intact and erected at the new place. 4. It is necessary now to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. A "rice mill" has been defined in Clause (i) of Sec.3 as follows: " rice mill means the plant and machinery with which, and the premises, including the precincts thereof, in which or in any part of which, rice-milling operation is carried on." This definition shows that a rice mill is not restricted to the plant and machinery only but includes the premises and the precincts thereof. An "existing rice mill" has been defined in Clause (b) of Sec.3 as a rice mill carrying on rice-milling operations at the commencement of the Act, and a "new rice mill" has been defined in Clause (e) of that section as a rice mill other than an existing rice mill or a defunct rice mill. Sec. 5 requires the obtaining of a permit from the competent authority for the establishment of a new rice mill. Sec. 6 requires that a licence should be obtained from the competent authority for carrying on rice-milling operations, whether in respect of an existing rice mill or in respect of a new rice mill for the establishment of which a permit is granted under Sec. 5. Sec. 6 requires that a licence should be obtained from the competent authority for carrying on rice-milling operations, whether in respect of an existing rice mill or in respect of a new rice mill for the establishment of which a permit is granted under Sec. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 prohibits the establishment of a new rice mill except in accordance with a permit granted under Sec. 5. Sub-section (2) of that section requires that any rice mill, whether an existing rice mill or a new rice mill, shall not carry on rice-milling operations after the commencement of the Act, except under and in accordance with a licence granted under Sec. 6. But a proviso has been inserted to this sub-section authorising the Central Government by notified order to exempt an existing rice mill from the operation of this sub-section for such period as may be specified in the order. 5. Thus the scheme of the Act is quite clear. A distinction is made between the "establishment" of a rice mill on the one hand and "carrying on rice-milling operations" on the other. In the case of new rice mills which came into existence after the commencement of the Act, permit is required to be obtained under Sec. 5 before such a mill can be established. In the case of a rice mill which was in existence on the date of the commencement of the Act, no such permit is required because it is an "existing rice mill". But both the classes of rice mills are required to obtain licence under Sec. 6 before carrying on milling operations. But the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8 authorises the Central Government to extend the date for the purpose of obtaining licence in respect of an existing rice mill. 6. The date of the commencement of the Act is now admitted to be the 22nd of April, 1959, as will be clear from the notification published in the Gazette of India on that day, in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of Sec.1 of the Act. This date should not be confused with the date to which the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8, exempted an existing rice mill from obtaining a licence for carrying on milling operations as required by the main part of that sub-section. This date should not be confused with the date to which the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8, exempted an existing rice mill from obtaining a licence for carrying on milling operations as required by the main part of that sub-section. That date is admittedly the 14th of November, 1960 (vide notification No. 18433-S. C., dated the 17th October, 1960). But merely because a new rice mill is erected prior to that date, it does not become an existing rice mill, because the relevant date for that purpose is the date of the commencement of the Act, namely, the 22nd April, 1959, and not the, extended date permitted by the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8. Here, admittedly, the rice mill was installed at Jarmundi sometime in October, 1960, after the commencement of the Act, and it actually started working from the 13th November, 1960. It will, therefore, be a new rice mill as defined in the Act, unless we can accept the contention of Mr. Sinha that, so long as the plant and machinery and the ownership remain the same, the mere fact that the rice mill was shifted from one place to another will not make it a new rice mill. 7. In my opinion, this contention of Mr. Sinha goes against the definition, of the expressions "existing rice mill" and "new rice mill" given in the interpretation clause. By expressly including premises and precincts where the plants and machineries are installed, the statute has made it clear that a "rice mill includes not only the plant and machinery but the place where it is located and if it is fixed at a new place, even though the machinery and the plant may be the same and the ownership may be the same, it will cease to be an "existing rice mill". Mr. Sinha, however, urged that such a definition will be repugnant to Sections 5 and 8 of the Act. In particular, he emphasised the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act which authorises the change of location of a rice mill after obtaining previous permission from the competent authority. Mr. Sinha, however, urged that such a definition will be repugnant to Sections 5 and 8 of the Act. In particular, he emphasised the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act which authorises the change of location of a rice mill after obtaining previous permission from the competent authority. He, therefore, urged that inasmuch as the Act envisages the change of location of an existing rice mill by obtaining previous permission from the competent authority, the place where the rice mill is located cannot be the essential ingredient of the definition of "rice mill so long as the plant and machinery are the same. In my opinion, such a construction will not be justified. Sections 5 and 8(1) of the Act clearly require the obtaining of a permit from the competent authority for starting a new, rice mill. There is nothing in the context of these two sections to show that in construing the expression "rice mill" the premises and the precincts where the plant and machinery are erected may be ignored. The definition would, therefore, apply with full force and a mill erected at a different place will become a new rice mill within the meaning of Clause (e) of Sec.3 of the Act. It is true that by virtue of the special provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act a change of location of an existing rice mill may be brought about by obtaining previous permission of the competent authority. In such a case it may not be a new rice mill not because any restrictive interpretation can be given, to the definition clause but merely because of the express provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. In other words, though the statute provided for two distinct classes of rice mills, namely, an existing rice mill and a new rice mill, nevertheless the framers of the statute thought it advisable to make a special provision for change of location of an existing rice mill after obtaining previous permission. In other words, though the statute provided for two distinct classes of rice mills, namely, an existing rice mill and a new rice mill, nevertheless the framers of the statute thought it advisable to make a special provision for change of location of an existing rice mill after obtaining previous permission. The necessity for inserting such a provision in Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 arose because otherwise by virtue of the definition clause by mere change of location of an existing rice mill it will become a new rice mill and permission will have to be obtained under Sec. 5 of the Act. It is with a view to obviate this difficulty that a special provision was made in Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. The insertion of a special provision of that type is itself the best argument to show that in all cases not coming within the said clause a mere change of location would make a rice mill a new rice mill. 8. For these reasons, we must hold that there is no error in the order of the Commissioner. The petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee: Rs. 100. Bahadur, J. 9 I agree.