Judgment Uday Sinha and B. N. Sinha, JJ. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing Annexures-5 and 8 to this application. This application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself as learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the case calls for expeditious disposal. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company. The present application has been filed through Rajesh Kumar Singh, a Director of the Company. The petitioner Company intending to start a flour mill at Digha within Digha police station got itself registered with the Secretariat for Industrial Approval (hereinafter called S I. A. in short ). It was allotted Registration No. R-212 (87)dated 6-2-1987, Having got itself registered, the petitioner applied to the assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Experts at Patna for issue of a licence to import flour milling machinery worth Rs.9.28 lacs. The petitioners application was rejected by an order of the Assistant-Chief Controller of imports and Exports, Patna by order dated 11-2-1988 which is Annexure-5 to this application. The petitioner, thereafter applied to the Assistant Chief controller of Imports and Exports once again to reconsider the matter in the light of the fresh points asserted by the petitioner. That application was considered by the local Central Government Committee and once again it was rejected. The order rejecting the petitioners application dated 19-7-1988 is annexure-8 to this application. The ground mentioned in Annexure-8 for rejecting the petitioners application was as follows :- "it was communicated by the representative of DGTD that condition no.8 (Annexure-I) of the Industrial licence issued to the party was imposed by the S. I. A. As such, if the firm wants to get the condition deleted, they may approach to S. I. A. for the same. " 3. " 3. The substantial ground for rejection was that in term of the Directorate of Secretariat for Industrial Approval the petitioner Company had been registered subject to condition No.8 mentioned in Annexure-1 to this application which reads as follows : "the new Industrial undertaking of the Industrial activity for the manufacture of new articles or the Industrial activity for affecting substantial expansion shall not be located within the standard urban limits, as determined in 1981 census ot a city having a population of mere than 10 lakhs or within the municipal limits of a city having a population of more than 5 lakhs as determined in the said census. " 4. From the above it will be seen that the condition was that the industrial unit should not be located within the standard urban limits, as determined in 1981 census of a city having a population ot more than 10 lakhs or within the municipal limits of a city having a population of more than 5 lakhs as determined in the said census. It is not in controversy that plot No.3458 in village Digha is not within the municipal limits of Patna Municipal Corporation. This is evident from Annexure-2-A to this application granted by the chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation in which it has been stated categorically that part of Digha Thana No.1 and plot No, 3458 is not within the jurisdiction of Patna Municipal Corporation It is thus obvious that the petitioners, flour miil would be located outside the limits of Patna Municipal corporation having a population of 5 lakhs. If the matters had remained as it is, the position would have been a bit confused but the matter have been clarified by Annexure-A which is the minutes of the 11th Meeting of the local central Government Committee held on 11-1-1988. Therein it was recorded as follows: "the Committee re-considered the case as per the request made by director of Census Operations, Bihar dated 25-11-1987. But is view of the commends from DGTD (RO), Calcutta, it was observed that the SIA Regn. has been issued subject to the condition that the unit should be located outside the standard urban area limit with a population of more than 5 lakhs. The firms proposal does not fulfil the condition No.8 of the SIA Regn. Hence the committee rejected the case. has been issued subject to the condition that the unit should be located outside the standard urban area limit with a population of more than 5 lakhs. The firms proposal does not fulfil the condition No.8 of the SIA Regn. Hence the committee rejected the case. " The position thus comes to this that the petitioner was denied licence on the ground that the unit would not be located outside the standard urban area limit with a population of more than 5 lakhs. This would be agaiast the terms of condition No.8 of SIA. We have stated earlier that the location of the flour mill was to be beyond the municipal area. The question, therefore, of its being located within Municipal limits with a population of 5 lakhs did not arise. The rejecticn of the petitioners application on reconsideration was, therefore on non est ground. 5 Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government drew our attention to Annexure-4 where Mr. P. N. Sinha, Assistant Director, Census Operation, bihar, Patna by letter dated 26-11-1987 has issued a certificate to the effect that in accordance with 1981 Census, Patna Danapur Standard Urban Area including village Digha had a population of 9,74,3 J b. This according to Mr. Ram Awadhesh Singh created a difficult situation for the petitioner inasmuch as this would violate condition No.8 which lays down that the unit to be installed should not be within the standard urban limits with a population of 10 lakhs. We, however, find that Mr P. N. Sinha, Assistant Director of Census operations, Bihar, Patna has granted a certificate on 7-i2-1987. where he has stated that only part of village Digha was within municipal limits. Rest according to the Census, had been treated as out growth, Whether it was within the municipal limits or not, the petitioner was directed to contact the municipal Corporation authorities. Annexurc-9 read with Annexure-2-A clarifies the matter and leads us to the conclusion that the place where the flour mill is to be located is not within municipal limits. The question of its being within the municipal having an area of 5 lakhs does not arise. In our view, the petitioners applications were rejected by Annexures-5 and 8 to this application on non est ground. The question of its being within the municipal having an area of 5 lakhs does not arise. In our view, the petitioners applications were rejected by Annexures-5 and 8 to this application on non est ground. We have taken note of the fact that another unit M/s. Danapur Roller Flour Mill has been granted licence for the import of machinery worth over rupees fifteen lakhs and odd. The petitioners scheme is only of 9.28 lakhs. The controller of imports has taken refuge under technical rigmarole saving that the other unit have been registered under the small scale unit whereas the petitioner has been registered under a different category, namely, S. I. A. This is piling technicality upon reason. 6. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the application must be allowed. It is allowed accordingly. Annexures-5 and 8 to this application are hereby quashed accordingly. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 are directed to issue necessary licence to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three months from today. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be delivered to Mr. Ram Awadhesh Singh, Additional standing Counsel for the Central Government. Application allowed.