JUDGMENT Manas Nath Roy, J. 1. In this Rule, the petitioner, who is the sole proprietor of a Rice Mill known as Manada Rice Mill (hereinafter referred to as the said Mill) has impeached an order dated 26.4.1974, by which the District Controller, Food & Supplies, Bankura, has asked him to show cause in writing as to why his licence shall not be suspended, revoked and the security deposit should not be forfeited for his failure to comply with the terms of the grant which was made by an order dated 13.2.1974. 2. Before dealing with the facts as mentioned in the petition it must be recorded first that although the Rule was made ready as regards service on 24.1.1975, no return to the same has been filed by the appearing respondents. 3. The petitioner, it appears, is carrying on his business in Rice Mill for the last 10 or 11 years except for a short break, when he could not run the same on account of various reasons beyond his control. He has stated that when he was running the said Mill prior to 1972 he had arrangements for boiling, fanning, drying, storage etc., and accordingly he could run the said Mill on the system known as own account which means that the rice miller purchases paddy outright from the producer and then undertakes all operations on his own account to convert the paddy into rice and then sell the same in open market on his own account. For such operation on his own account it has also been stated that the rice miller is required to take a licence under the West Bengal Paddy and Rice (Licencing and Control) Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order). It has been stated by the petitioner that the said order has nothing to do with rice milling as such but requires a rice miller to take out a licence under the said order, if he purchases paddy for milling rice and sells rice as produced out of such paddy. 4. There is no dispute that at all material time the petitioner was holding a licence for his rice milling operations as required under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 4. There is no dispute that at all material time the petitioner was holding a licence for his rice milling operations as required under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). He has further stated that his operations came within the meaning of "Milling Rice" and he was the owner of a rice mill as defined under the said Act and accordingly he used to carry on his rice milling business under a valid licence under the said Act till 1972 as aforesaid. The petitioner has stated that because of his failure, which again was beyond his control, as stated aforesaid his rice mill become a defunct Rice Mill within the meaning of the said Act. The said petitioner has stated that during the latter part of 1973 he having had recovered from his illness and for the purpose of making a living for himself and his family, he decided to recommence the said Mill. 5. The petitioner has stated that although in ordinary parlance a husking mill is different from a rice mill, yet for the purpose of the said Act a husking mill is a rice mill and the person who wants to operate such a mill is required to take out a licence under the said Act. Thus, he has stated that a licence granted under the said Act applies both to the limited operation known as husking as also to the wider operation commonly known as rice milling and the owner of the husking mill apart from mere husking paddy does nothing else and all other operations are undertaking by the persons themselves who come to have the paddy husked. It further appears that in a rice mill properly so called on the other hand not only husking but all other connected operation are undertaken by the miller himself and this is so whether he does it on his account or merely on commission. 6. The petitioner on or about 9.7.1973 filed an application for permission to commence husking business in the said mill. The application appears to have been recommended by the Chairman of the concerned Municipality. In the said application, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that the pre-existing arrangements are no longer there and he intends to undertake husking operation only. 6. The petitioner on or about 9.7.1973 filed an application for permission to commence husking business in the said mill. The application appears to have been recommended by the Chairman of the concerned Municipality. In the said application, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that the pre-existing arrangements are no longer there and he intends to undertake husking operation only. Thereafter, the said application which was filed before the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Bankura, was forwarded to the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supplies by his memo dated 18.8.1973 and the Director concerned in his turn sent the application back to the District Controller with his necessary comments by his Memo dated 5.11.1973. The petitioner has alleged to have been informed by the Office of the District Controller and he has further stated that he believes that the Director concerned stated in the Memo as mentioned above that so far as the conversion of a rice mill with one huller into a husking mill, no special permission is required. It may be mentioned that the said mill of the petitioner had and has one huller. 7. It has also been stated by the petitioner that thereafter, an enquiry was made into the matter, wherein the statements as made by him were found to be true. He has further stated that even thereafter and on being advised, on 18.12.1973, he filed an application for permission to re-commence rice milling operations in the prescribed form and ultimately he was granted a permit, being permit No. 2504/HM dated 14.1.1974 informing him that such permit has been granted to him for rice milling operations in the said mill after obtaining a licence under the said Act. The said sanction was valid upto 14.4.1974 and the same was issued by the Director of District Distribution, Procurement and Supplies. From a reference to the said communication, it would appear that the said Director desired the District Controller to ensure before the granting of licence that the rice millers participate in the procurement operation. Such conditional grant has been assailed in this proceeding to be invalid, void inoperative and without jurisdiction. 8. From a reference to the said communication, it would appear that the said Director desired the District Controller to ensure before the granting of licence that the rice millers participate in the procurement operation. Such conditional grant has been assailed in this proceeding to be invalid, void inoperative and without jurisdiction. 8. The petitioner, however, thereafter, took necessary steps for obtaining the licence under the said Act and in that operation he was asked to intimate his willingness or his actual acquiescence of the formalities of the agreement in question and he has alleged that the authorities concerned would not have considered or granted him the necessary licence until he had given such undertaking in term of the conditions as referred to hereinbefore. In fact, he has alleged that having placed into embarrassing circumstances he was forced to agree to comply with such terms as mentioned above, although they were totally unauthorized. He has now contended that such act on his part to agree to the said unauthorized terms which were imposed on him illegally and without any authority would not operate as a bar to the maintainability of the petition. It has been alleged by him that he was advised by the communication as mentioned hereinbefore that the licence which would be issued in the month of March, 1974, would be valid till the end of the said month and at the time of the renewal he can make his position clear and operate the said mill merely as husking mill. He has of course, stated that the question whether the rice miller would operate on his own account or not was of no or total or irrelevant consideration so far as the permit or the licence under the said Act was concerned. Furthermore, the authorities under the said Act have no power to impose any such condition as aforesaid in a permit or licence. The petitioner was ultimately granted a licence on 26.3.1974 under the said Act which was delivered to him at a point of time when the same was to remain valid only for 5 days viz., upto 31.3.1974. He has stated that the permit so granted did not really contain any condition so as to require him to operate on his own account or to participate in procurement operation. He has stated that the permit so granted did not really contain any condition so as to require him to operate on his own account or to participate in procurement operation. He has further contended that the condition as imposed being not the condition as prescribed under the said Act, would also be inoperative. There is also no dispute that in the meantime the petitioner has obtained a licence under the said Order. It has been stated by the petitioner further that before the expiry of the licence he filed an application for renewal of the same in the prescribed form and within the permitted time limit. He has further stated that along with the said renewal application, he submitted the licence in question to the Office of the District Controller and the said application for renewal is still pending. It has been stated by him that he was given a token in respect of the said licence by way of a receipt and it was endorsed in the said receipt that the same would rennin valid upto 30.4.1974. He has further contended that it is the usual practice in the office of the District Controller concerned, respondent No.1, to grant the receipt as aforesaid in respect of the relevant renewal application, so as to enable the applicants for renewal to prove, it necessary, that he has filed the application for renewal. He has further alleged that after such an application for renewal is made, the authorities are required to dispose of the same in accordance with law. It further appears that the petitioner made repeated representations for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information's about the fate of his application which was so recommended by the Chairman of the Municipality concerned, for convertion the said mill into a husking mill, as became of his poverty he was not in a position to run the said mill any longer. Thereafter, on or about 29.4.1974 he was served with the impugned Memo dated 26/27.4.1974 from the District Controller, Food & Supplies, Bankura, which in fact was a show cause notice. In the said Memo it was stated that it appears from his petition dated 18.4.1974 that the petitioner would run the said mill as husking mill from 19.4.1974, instead of working the same as a rice mill. In the said Memo it was stated that it appears from his petition dated 18.4.1974 that the petitioner would run the said mill as husking mill from 19.4.1974, instead of working the same as a rice mill. He was further informed that his licence for the said mill was issued on the condition that he would participate in procurement operation as per Director's Order No. 2504/RM dated 14.1.1974, granting the permit to the defunct rice mill. From the Memo as aforesaid it further appears that the petitioner was directed to show cause in writing within a week from the date of the receipt of the said Memo as to why his licence should not be suspended, revoked and security forfeited for the above irregularities. Immediately on receipt of the said Memo, the petitioner showed cause, contending, inter alia, amongst other that he had not violated any provision of the said Act. He also contended that the conditions for participation in the procurement operation was not to be found anywhere under the said Act and as such the same was authorized and absurd. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner was again served with a second show cause notice dated 13.5.1974, issued by the District Controller concerned wherein it was mentioned that the came as shown by the petitioner was not convincing and he was informed that the conditions which were imposed while granting the permit should be ensured viz., the rice miller should participate in procurement operation. The said second show cause notice has also been termed by the petitioner as illegal malafide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has further stated that the condition as was sought to be imposed on the basis of the administrative direction to subordinate officers, which was struck out in the copy of the permit which was served on him, was also improper and contrary to the provisions of the said Act. He has further stated that the surrender of the licence granted under the said Order has nothing to do with the granting of the licence under the said Act. However, by his letter of 19.5.1974 the petitioner duly showed cause to the District Controller concerned. In the said show cause it was also categorically mentioned again that under the relevant provisions of law the authorities empowered to grant permit was not entitled to impose any condition regarding miller's participation in the so-called procurement operation. However, by his letter of 19.5.1974 the petitioner duly showed cause to the District Controller concerned. In the said show cause it was also categorically mentioned again that under the relevant provisions of law the authorities empowered to grant permit was not entitled to impose any condition regarding miller's participation in the so-called procurement operation. It was also indicated that as the permit, which was valid upto 31.3.1974, was delivered to the petitioner only on 26.3.1974, there could not be any occasion for participation in the so-called procurement operations, even if such terms were proper. The petitioner further indicated that since his application for renewal of licence as aforesaid was and is still pending and the alleged condition in the licence was not made known to him, the action as sought to be taken was improper. 10. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee appearing in support of the Rule, first relied on section 5(3) of the said Act which deals with the granting of permits in respect of new defunct rice mill and is to the following effect:- 5(1)….. 5(2)….. 5(3) If, on receipt of any such application for the grant of a permit, the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for ensuring adequate supply of rice, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), grant the permit specifying therein the period within which the mill is to be established or, as the case may be the mill is to re-commence rice-milling operation and (such other conditions (including such conditions as to improvements to existing machinery, replacement of existing machinery and use of improved methods of rice-milling, as may be necessary to eliminate waste, obtain maximum production and improve quality) as it may think fit) to impose, in accordance with the rules, if any, made in this behalf. He then referred to the provisions for the grant of a licence in section 6 and more particularly to sub-section 3 thereunder which is to the following effect:- 6(1)….. 6(2)….. 6(3) A licence granted by the licensing officer on application made under this section shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) That the licenses shall recover from every customer not less than sixty percent of the charges for milling rice in kind, that is, in rice. 6(2)….. 6(3) A licence granted by the licensing officer on application made under this section shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) That the licenses shall recover from every customer not less than sixty percent of the charges for milling rice in kind, that is, in rice. (b) That the licensee shall deliver to the State Government (seven tones in the case of a husking mill which is fitted with a No.2 type of huller and in any other case), five tones of rice of fair average quality within the thirtieth day of April every year at such price as may be fixed by the State Government under any law for the time being in force. (c) Such other conditions, if any, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. Apart from relying on Rules 3 and 4 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation and Licensing) Rules, 1959, which are to the following effect:- Rule 3 – Permit: (1) Every application for a permit shall be in Form I. (1A) In the case of a new rice mill, the application referred to in sub-rule (1), shall be made before taking any of the following steps namely:- (a) Raising from the public any part of the capital required for the rice mill. (b) Acquiring land for setting up the rice mill. (c) Commencing the construction of any part of the building wherein the rice mill is intended to be installed. (d) Placing order for the whole or any part of the plant and machinery required for the rice mill. (2) The investigation referred to in sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Act shall be made with a view to ascertaining whether the grant of the permit is necessary for ensuring an adequate supply of rice and shall, in addition to the matters specified in clauses (a) to (c) of that sub-section, relate to the ascertainment of information regarding:- (a) The effect that the operation of the new or the defunct rice mill may have on the local economy. (b) The pattern of trade and commerce in rice in the locality. (c) The reasons for the stoppage of operation in the case of a defunct rice mill. (d) The necessity or otherwise for an addition to the productive capacity of the existing rice mills in the locality. (b) The pattern of trade and commerce in rice in the locality. (c) The reasons for the stoppage of operation in the case of a defunct rice mill. (d) The necessity or otherwise for an addition to the productive capacity of the existing rice mills in the locality. (e) Whether hand-pounding industry in the locality is already well organized and whether the establishment of a new rice mill is likely to affect adversely that industry. (3) In granting a permit for the establishment of a new rice mill reference shall be given to sheller-type mill. (4) A permit granted under section 5 of the Act shall be in Form II. (5) Every person to whom a permit has been granted shall:- (a) If it is for the establishment of a new rice mill, establish the same within six months. (b) If it is form re-commencing rice-milling operation in a defunct rice mill, re-commence such operation within three months, from the date of grant of the permit or within such further period as the authority, granting the permit, may allow. Rule 4 – (1) An application for a licence shall be made:- (a) By the owner of a new rice mill who has obtained a permit under section 5 of the Act, after he has established the mill within the prescribed period. (b) By the owner of a defunct rice min, after he has been granted a permit for re-commencing milling operation. (c) By the owner of an existing rice mill within such period after the commencement of the Act as may be specified in the order under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section & of the Act. (2) Every application for a licence shall be in Form III and shall be accompanied by the treasury receipt evidencing payment of the prescribed fee. (3) The fee payable for a licence shall be Rs. 5/- and that for the renewal of a licence shall be Rs. 2/- (4) Every licence granted under section 6 of the Act shall be in From IV, shall be subject to the conditions specified therein and shall be valid for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified therein and may be renewed for period not exceeding one year at a time. 2/- (4) Every licence granted under section 6 of the Act shall be in From IV, shall be subject to the conditions specified therein and shall be valid for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified therein and may be renewed for period not exceeding one year at a time. He submitted that the conditions as imposed viz., that the licensee should participate in procurement operation being a condition foreign either to the provisions of the said Act or to the Rule as framed thereunder, the incorporation of such terms or the refusal to grant licence to the petitioner for not complying with such terms, was improper. 11. Considering the arguments of Mr. Mukherjee and on a reference to the provisions of the statute as referred to hereinbefore and the rules as framed thereunder, it appears that the conditions as aforesaid, which were sought to be incorporated for the observation by the petitioner was incompetent and unauthorized, such condition has not to be found anywhere in the statute. When a condition has been sought to be imposed which is contrary to the statute then the submissions of Mr. Mukharjee should be held to be of substance and as such the impugned refusal on the basis of the failure of the petitioner to participate in procurement operation, which again were conditions, as mentioned hereinbefore foreign either to the statute or to the rule as framed thereunder, the refusal to grant licence on that basis cannot be sustained. 12. Thus the rule is made absolute and the respondents are required not to refuse licence to the petitioner for his refusal or failure to comply with the terms as mentioned above. There will be no order for costs. This will not, however, prejudice the respondents from proceeding afresh in the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law for the renewal of the licence to the petitioner as for the refusal of the same appropriately, if they are so advised.