JUDGMENT The petitioner No.1, a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act which is a federation of owners of Husking Mill and the other petitioners who also owners of Husking Mill and members of the petitioner No.1, jointly have challenged in the instant writ petition the notification No. 8532-F. S. dated 18th December, 1992 issued by the department of Food and Supplies. Government of West Bengal, wherein a policy decision has been taken by the State Government for encouraging setting up of Mini Rice Mill, which shall be of modernised type with a rubber roll sheller on a centrifugal dehusker along with a paddy cleaner and a paddy separator either as a composite unit or as a separate machine for the purpose of dehusking paddy. 2. In the aforesaid notification itself the reasons for taking such a policy decision is indicated. It has been stated in the said notification, inter alia, that the question of encouraging installation of small or Mini Rice Mills in the State bas been under the consideration of the State Government for quite sometime; in order to ensure higher extraction of rice from paddy, eliminate waste, improve the quality of rice, obtain other usable by-products like rice bran for production of oil through the adoption of modern technology, discourage the growing proliferation of husking mills operating without licence and to increase the collection of levy rice to strengthen the public distribution system it has been necessary for public interest to setting up of such Mini Rice Mills as well as conversion of existing husking mills, and accordingly it has been ordered by the Government to take steps to facilitate setting up of modernised Mini Rice Mills for commercial purpose in the State. The aforesaid notification was also given the detailed particulars as to the nature of such Mini Rice Mills, the procedures for obtaining permit and licence for such Mini Rice Mills, the liability and obligation of such Mini Rice Mills owner and various other particulars in respect thereof. 3. The main grounds of challenge of the aforesaid notification by the writ petitioners are that by the aforesaid notification a peculiar concept of Mini Rice Mills de hors the provision of the Rice Milling Industries Regulation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to the said Act) is sought to be introduced and same is also clearly ultra vires the provision of the Act. The petitioners have challenged the propriety and correctness of the said policy decision on the contention that the provisions for modernisation of husking mills for the purpose of higher extraction of rice and for improvement quality of rice and to obtain other usable by-products like rice bran etc. are already therein in the Act and accordingly for such objects the creation of a Mini Rice Mill is not really required. 4. It has further been contended that after taking into account the total availability of paddy in West Bengal and the existing number of legal Husking Mills and after making provision of the required amount of paddy for their optimum operation, not a single additional husking mill or mini rice mill can be established in West Bengal. Quoting the statistics released by the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, relating to the total production of paddy in the year 1991-92 in West Bengal where from it appears that the quantity of paddy which required for husking was 1, 43, 44, 336 tonnes upon which the licensed Chira Mills and 350 big Rice Mills and 10,000 unlicensed husking mills have to depend on the above quantity of paddy for their operation and consequent survival, it has further been contended that for scarcity and non-availability of paddy out of 700 Rice Mills, 350 Rice Mills has already been closed down and 350 Rice Mills are now operating which required 37,80,000 tonnes. In addition to the same 10,000 licensed husking mills in West Bengal require minimum quantity of 1, 27, 75, 000 tonnes of paddy per year. It is contended that apart from the same there are at least 15, 000 or more unlicensed husking mills which are operating illegally and are allowed to do so by the authorities concerned with full knowledge of the same. It is contended that in such a situation it is not understood as to how the licence to Mint Husking Mills would be given and levy paddy will be realised from them when there is no paddy at all in the locality or the area where such Mini Rice Mills are situated. 5. It is contended that in such a situation it is not understood as to how the licence to Mint Husking Mills would be given and levy paddy will be realised from them when there is no paddy at all in the locality or the area where such Mini Rice Mills are situated. 5. It has further been contended that the application of the said Act to the Mini Rice Mills is illusory and within the short period of time as indicated in the order it will be impossible for a Mini Rice Mill owner to deposit or deliver the quantity of paddy and/or rice after obtaining the permit or licence. It bas been also specifically pleaded that the aforesaid notification is not only an illegality but is also a fraud upon the statute as it bas been introduced for the purpose of covering up the inability of the State Government to enforce the law against the illegal activities of the unlicensed Husking Mill owners inspite of numerous representations made against such illegalities by the existing licensed Husking Mill Owners. The petitioners complain that by the impugned notification the respondents are out to give premium to such breakers of law to the serious prejudice of the petitioners who are operating the husking machines illegally. 6. The petitioners complain that by the impugned notification the respondents are out to give premium to such breakers of law to the serious prejudice of the petitioners who are operating the husking machines illegally. 6. It will thus appear from the pleadings in the writ petition that the policy decision of the respondents contained in the aforesaid notification for encouraging setting up of Mini Rice Mills bas been challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on four grounds; firstly, on the ground that the concept of Mini Rice Mill is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act and therefore the decision of the respondents for encouraging setting up of such Mini Rice Mills is illegal and without jurisdiction; secondly, there being already provisions for modernisation of Rice Mills and/or Husking Mills, inter alia, for the purpose elimination of waste and improvement of quality of rice as contained in the Act there was no necessity of the so-called concept of Mini Rice Mills; thirdly, having regard to the quantity of paddy available in a year for husking there is no further need for setting up of Mini Rice Mills and lastly, the said decision as contained, in the said notification is a fraud on the statute and has been taken mala fide to cover up the inability of the State Government to deal effectively with the illegal husking mill owners, and for the purpose of giving premium to such offenders. 7. On the aforesaid application on 16th March, 1993 an interim order was granted to the effect that the respondent had liberty to receive application for installation of Mini Rice Mills but shall not take any final decision on such application. 8. The respondent filed an application for vacating interim order on 5th of May, 1993 and after the aforesaid writ application and the application for vacating interim order came before this Court, the entire writ application and the vacating interim order have been heard out together and all the parties had argued in full. 8. The respondent filed an application for vacating interim order on 5th of May, 1993 and after the aforesaid writ application and the application for vacating interim order came before this Court, the entire writ application and the vacating interim order have been heard out together and all the parties had argued in full. In the said application for vacating interim order it has been pleaded by the respondents, inter alia, that the State of West Bengal although is a highest rice producing State has the lowest number of rice mills in comparison to the other rice producing State and such meager number of rice mill is resulting in huge loss of production of rice as well as production of bran and accordingly installation of more rice mills is necessary in national interest and in order to secure maximum production of rice from the paddy produced in the State as well as for paddy imported from outside the State decision has been taken for encouraging setting up of Mini Rice Mills. It is contended by quoting facts and figures that there is a substantial loss in respect of rice where the paddy is milled in a husking mill and In case of West Bengal where the annual production of paddy is more than 1.5 crore metric tonne of rice. It is further contended that bran at present is an important source of edible oil and extraction of maximum quantity of bran is necessary to meet the growing demand for edible oil throughout the country and particularly in West Bengal and for the purpose also such decision has been taken to encourage setting up of Mini Rice Mills, as admittedly no bran is available when the paddy is dehusked by a rice miller. It has been further contended that with the Installation of increasing number of Rice Mills the State will be able to collect levs rice which will ultimately strengthen the public distribution system and accordingly such a decision is for public interest. It is further pleaded that such establishment of mini rice mms will generate rural employment which will also serve public interest. 9. It is further pleaded that such establishment of mini rice mms will generate rural employment which will also serve public interest. 9. The respondents have also challenged the very locus standi of the present writ petitioners to challenge the notification on the ground the existing operators of Husking Mills have got no right to oppose decision of establishment of further mills as in such process no right of any of the petitioner is affected. 10 Having heard the learned Advocates of both the parties and considering all the materials on records it appears to this Court that the challenge of the present writ petitioners which is a existing husking mills owners and their association of the policy decision of the State Government in the impugned order for encouraging of setting up of Mini Rice Mills, Inter alia. on the ground that there is no need of setting up of any further Rice Mills in view of the less availability of the paddy is misconceived and cannot be sustained. 11. By the aforesaid decision of the State Government it cannot be said any right of the present petitioners who are existing husking mills owners for less to speak of any constitutional right is violated. 12. Each of the petitioner no doubt is entitled to carryon his business of operating husking mill in exercise of his fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution subject to the reasonable restriction imposed under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. The decision of the State Government as contained in the impugned notification For encouraging setting up of Mini Rice Mills does not in any manner whatsoever takes away or abridges the aforesaid Fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution or to carry on the said business under the provision of the said Act and Rules made thereunder. Because of setting up of such mills the fact that there may be more competition among the different type of mill owners and may result in less income or profit to the existing mill owner is no ground for interference with such decision of the State Government, as it is one of the Constitution goal of the State to take measures to prevent monopoly in business and concentration of wealth in the hands of few. The Apex Court also time and again deprecated such practice of monopoly and has held the fact that more competition may result in. less income and less profit of the existing businessmen is no ground of interference Whether availability of paddy or nature of trade and commerce in paddy in a particular case will justify grant of permit and licence to a new mill, is a matter to be decided by the Licensing Authority in a given case after due investigation under Section 5 of the said Act and under the rules made under the Act. Such matters will be within the comprehension of the Licensing Authority and on that ground the said policy decision of the State Government cannot be challenged. 13. In the case of (1) Rice and Flour Mills v. N. T. Gowda reported in AIR 1971 SC 246 , the Supreme Court held that an existing mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution setting up of a new rice mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of Section 8(3) (c) of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958, as no right vested in such an operator is infringed. If the case of (2) Jasbhai Deshai v. Rashan Kumar reported in AIR 1976 SC page 578 the question which arose for the determination of the Supreme Court was whether the proprietor of a Cinema, Theatre Hall holding a licence For exhibiting Cinema autograph films is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ..................... to get a no objection certificate granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 by the District Magistrate in favour of the rival in the trade. to get a no objection certificate granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 by the District Magistrate in favour of the rival in the trade. The Supreme Court held that such challenge cannot be maintained as no vested right of the existing Cinema owners was affected and the impugned order bas not deprived the existing Cinema autograph of any legal right in any manner whatsoever., In the case of (3) Mithilesh Gorg v. Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC page 443 the Supreme Court held that it is a guaranteed right of every citizen to take up or carryon the motor transport business subject to the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed and the restrictions which were imposed in that regard relating to number of stage carriages as contained in the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 having been done away within the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which does not contain similar restriction in the present Act, the existing operators do not have any right to object to the grant of permit on the ground the, same will increase number of permits. 14. In all the abovementioned decisions the Supreme Court also held that more number of husking mill or stage carriages or Cinema Hall as the case may be are necessary to ensure fair competition. In the aforesaid case of Mithilesh Gorg v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court also upheld the liberalised policy in the matter of grant of permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 15. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner however has sought to distinguish the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court by relying on the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in (4) AIR 1975 Kerala page 9 as also on the unreported decisions of Bimal Chandra Basak. J. (as His Lordship then was), dated 27th June, 1985, in the case of (5) Syed Mafadzzal Hussain and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., being C. O. No. 2629(W)/80 and also in the unreported decision of Subhas Chandra Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was) dated 30th August, 1992 being C. O. No. 3266 (W)/82 in the case of (6) Paskura Bani Mill Malik Samity & Ors. v. Slate of West Bengal & Ors. 16. The aforesaid decisions however are not applicable and distinguishable. 17. v. Slate of West Bengal & Ors. 16. The aforesaid decisions however are not applicable and distinguishable. 17. In the case of Paskura Thana Bani Mill Malik Samity & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., being C. O. No.3266(W)/82 the said Samity, the members of which were all Husking Mill Owners, challenged the failure of the State Authorities to take appropriate action against the private respondents who were illegally running Husking Mill without any licence. The contention raised by the respondents in the said writ petition that the said petition was not maintainable by the said Samity was rejected by Subhas Chandra Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was) relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (7) Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 298 as because of such illegal running of Husking Mill the right of the Husking Mill Owners and public interest was affected. In the said case Subhas Chandra Sen, J. had no occasion to consider the question whether existing Husking Mill Owners can resist the introduction of new Rice Mills or Husking Mills on the ground that production or availability of paddy do not justify further introduction of Rice Mills. Similarly in the case of Syed Mafadzzal Hussain & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors,) being C. O. No. 2629(W)/80 the petitioners therein challenged the grant of permit to the private respondents for establishment of Husking Mills on the ground that such permits were granted by the Licensing Authority without holding the requisite enquiry and investigation under Section 5 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act. 195 and the Rules made thereunder and in violation of the aforesaid provisions. 195 and the Rules made thereunder and in violation of the aforesaid provisions. In the said case the application of the said respondents for grant of such permits were initially rejected and thereafter on the representations of the School Authorities and the Panchayat at Such decision was reviewed which was challenged in the said writ petition, Bimal Chandra Basak, J. (as His Lordship then was) had no occasion to consider the question whether the existing Husking Mill Owners can challenge the introduction of new Husking Mill or Rice Mill on the ground that availability of paddy do not justify further introduction of such Mills' The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. V T C, and Bros. (supra) was distinguished in the said case by His Lordships on the facts of the said case For the same reason the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the case of (8) Dibakar v. Dy. Director of Fisheries reported in AIR 1975 SC 9 relied upon by Mr. Das is not applicable where the contention of the respondents that Association of Fishermen had no right to challenge the fishing operation of the private respondents illegally without any licence, was rejected on the ground that the interest of such Fishermen, as distinct for the general inconvenience which may be suffered by the law not being administered was affected. 18. It must not also be overlooked that the aforesaid decision of the State Government is a policy decision and therefore it is not for the Court to interfere with such policy decision unless it can be shown by the petitioners that such policy decision is mala fide or illusory affecting the petitioners adversely. 19. The petitioners have failed to satisfy this Court that such policy decision is arbitrary and/or mala fide and has affected them adversely. 20. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid decision of the State Government is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder or de hors the same. 20. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid decision of the State Government is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder or de hors the same. It will appear from the objects of the said Act itself that one of such objects is creation of rural employment and creation of reasonable facilities for conversion of paddy into rice to facilitate increase appreciably the production of rice in the country. 21. By the impugned notification it will appear that whole purpose for encouraging of setting up of Mini Rice Mills is for the purpose of introducing modernised machinery instead of old sterio type mills for taking advantage of the scientific innovation and development in such Rice Milling Industry and the same therefore is in consonance with the policy of increased production of rice through the process of extraction of more rice by using modernised technique. Such a decision therefore is not ultra vires the aforesaid Act and rules made thereunder but in consonance with the provision of the said Act and the rules made thereunder. 22. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that such provision for modernised technique is redundant as there are already provisions for the same in the rules and in Clause 3D of the conditions of licence which perfectly cater to the need indicated in the notification and, consequently the respondents by introducing such a concept is acting beyond their jurisdiction are misconceived. 23. In the writ petition all these points were not specifically pleaded at all and therefore at the time of bearing such point cannot be taken. That apart it will appear from Section 3(1) of the said Act that rice mill has been defined as a plant and machinery with which and the premises including the precinct thereof in which or in any part of which rice milling operation is carried on. Under Section 3(d) of the said Act milling rice with its grammatical variation means recovering rice or any product thereof from paddy, polishing rice with the aid of power. Under Section 3(d) of the said Act milling rice with its grammatical variation means recovering rice or any product thereof from paddy, polishing rice with the aid of power. The small or mini rice mill which is sought to be introduced is also a rice mill within the meaning of the said definition under the said Act The same is a modernised machinery for rice milling operation with a rubber roll sheller on a centrifugal dehusker along with a paddy cleaner and a paddy separator either as a composite unit or as separate machine for the purpose of dehusking paddy, for polishing of rice (for which installation of a core polisher in desirable, but a buller may also be utilised for such polishing which however is to be replaced with a core polisher within 3 years) and construction of chatal for drying of paddy and rice mill be desirable but not obligatory. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in case of rice mill after the paddies are purchased by a rice miller the same are dried in the precinct (chatal) of the rice mill and therefore there cannot be any rice mills without such precinct and the provision of the said Act is applicable to husking mill only in view of Section 3A of the said Act. 24. It is true that in the process of milling operation such drying of paddy become necessary for which the precinct of rice mill forms a part of the rice mill and hence the aforesaid definition, but at the same time in my view such definition of rice mill is wide enough to include a rice mill which may be developed through scientific innovation which may not require such a "Chatal" inasmuch as even in such case, just as in the case of Mini Rice Mill the plants and machineries are for the purpose of rice milling operation. There is nothing in the said definition or in the other provisions of the Act wherefrom it can be said that without such precincts the plants and machineries which carryon rice milling operation cannot be treated as rice mill. For the same reason it may also come within the meaning of rice miller under Section 3A of the said Act. There is nothing in the said definition or in the other provisions of the Act wherefrom it can be said that without such precincts the plants and machineries which carryon rice milling operation cannot be treated as rice mill. For the same reason it may also come within the meaning of rice miller under Section 3A of the said Act. The fact that such mini rice mill unlike an ordinary husking mill, will also be able to polish the rice apart from the dehusking the paddy may not charge the position, particularly in view of the fact that polishing is also be possible by the rice huller by adjustment of blades. In the case of (9) Chandra Kanta Saha v. Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC page 314, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that Section 3(d) Clauses (i) and (ii) and (gg) of the said Act will include husking mill and husking mill operation and it was not necessary at all for the legislature to add Section 3A of the Act. For the same reasons the aforesaid Section 3(d)(i) and (iii) and (gg) will include mini rice mill and its operation. 25. It therefore cannot be said by the aforesaid notification the respondents are trying to permit operation of a machine for such milling operation which cannot be brought within the purview of the said Act and therefore the respondents were acting beyond the jurisdiction. By introduction of such mini rice mill the respondents are not seeking to modify or amend the provisions of the said Act but are trying to modernise the rice milling operation, for the purposes indicated in the said notification which will certain some public interest, which is very much provided for in the Act itself. The same not being arbitrary or mala fide, it is not for the Court to substitute its satisfaction for that of the State Government to find out whether the same is necessary or not. It is also be noted in this connection that it will appear from the aforesaid notification that mini rice milling operation by such a construction of "Chatal" although has not been said to be obligatory has said to be desirable. Therefore the concept of a precinct of a rice mill is not done away altogether in case of mini rice mill. 26. Therefore the concept of a precinct of a rice mill is not done away altogether in case of mini rice mill. 26. The fact through such mini rice mills the State Government is also seeking to take further advantage through such modernised milling operation of production rice bran as a by-product for ultimate production of oil, cannot make the said policy bad or arbitrary, when the same is certainly for public Interest and very much in consonance with the provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder particularly the definition of milling operation. 27. Because of the reasons aforesaid it cannot also be said the policy decision of the State Government to encourage setting up of above mini rice mill and to take decision that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder will be made applicable to said mini rice mill has made any hostile discrimination against the rice mills or husking mills owners. As it will appear from the said notification itself that the mini rice- millers unlike the husking mill owners will be allowed to do commercial milling on their account for which they have to obtain licence under the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 for purchase and storage of paddy and rice for sale and will be allowed to sell rice after fulfilment of their levy obligation and therefore the rice millers will form a class separate from the husking millers who cannot purchase or sell paddy and rice or to have to pay levy. 28. It has been sought to be argued that if examined closely it will appear that there is a gulf of difference between the operation of a rice mill and a rice huller so far as the availability of paddy and the space required for operating the mill inasmuch as a rice miller after purchasing the paddy must have boiling equipment and drying Chatal whereas husking mill operation can be done in a small space. Even if it is so it is not understood as to how because of such difference as aforesaid, the petitioners are affected by the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government or the said policy decision becomes bad. 29. Even if it is so it is not understood as to how because of such difference as aforesaid, the petitioners are affected by the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government or the said policy decision becomes bad. 29. As pointed out hereinbefore the whole basis of the policy decision of the State Government to encourage setting up of such mini rice mill for modernisation of milling operation is to achieve the purposes indicated the said notification; but at the same time as the same becomes rice milling industry and the State has no jurisdiction to legislate on such subject and under Section 2 of the said Act the necessary declaration as required by Entry 52, List I, Schedule-VII of the Constitution having been made that it is expedient for public interest that union should take under its control the rice milling industry, it has specifically been clarified that the provision of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder will applicable in case of such mini rice mills. 30. It is not therefore understood how the petitioners being the existing husking mm owners can object to the same on the ground of such difference of operation between rice mill and rice huller etc. particularly when it is not the case of the petitioners that they are willing to establish such mini rice mills, but the provision of the said Act and the Rules cannot be made applicable the same. 31. Similarly the contention of the petitioners that Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid notification providing, inter alia. that the restriction of establishing a new industry mill owner two K. M. distance from the existing husking rice mill will not be applicable to mini rice mill is ex facie discriminatory is not tenable. The petitioner cannot be said to be affected by the same and no right of the petitioner is taken away by the same. That apart as pointed out hereinbefore the mini rice mill for the reasons stated above form a separate class. That apart it has been held by our High Court in a number of judgment that such a distance bar cannot be a ground for refund of permit of a husking mill. 32. It has rightly been contended by Mr. That apart as pointed out hereinbefore the mini rice mill for the reasons stated above form a separate class. That apart it has been held by our High Court in a number of judgment that such a distance bar cannot be a ground for refund of permit of a husking mill. 32. It has rightly been contended by Mr. Arun Mitra, the learned Counsel for the State on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the (10) Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court page 1044, where it has been held that it is implicit in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 that the relief prayed for must be granted to enforce the legal right which ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself who complains of infringement of such right, no right of the petitioners can be said to be affected. 33. Similarly the attack of the petitioner against the aforesaid notification, on the ground that the introduction of such mini rice mill, inter alia, for the purpose of procuring levy through such rice mill is de hors the provision of the Rice Milling Regulation Act and therefore cannot be sustained, is again misconceived as the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the same nor any right of the petitioners have been affected thereby. Admittedly the petitioners are not owners of mini rice mills and they have not challenged any action of the Government calling upon the mini rice mill owner to pay levy or action of the Licensing Authority to refuse to grant any permit or licence in respect of mini rice mills unless he agrees to pay levy. The decision in the case of (11) Paresh Nath v. District Controller Food and Supplies reported in 1978(1) Calcutta Law Journal 83 related upon on behalf of the petitioner is therefore not applicable at all in the instant case. 34. The decision in the case of (11) Paresh Nath v. District Controller Food and Supplies reported in 1978(1) Calcutta Law Journal 83 related upon on behalf of the petitioner is therefore not applicable at all in the instant case. 34. That apart even though increase in the collection of levy rice for strengthening the public distribution system by setting up of more rice mill is not one of the objects or purpose of the said Act, the fact that the same is also one of the purposes of such policy decision of the State Government to encourage setting up of Mini Rice Mill, cannot vitiate such policy decision when the other purposes of such policy decision, namely ensuring higher extraction of rice from paddy elimination of waste, improvement in the quality of rice, obtaining other usable by-products like rice bran for production of oil through adoption of modern technology being quite in consonance with the objects and purposes of the said Act and are in public interest and if State has the power to collect levy rice from the rice mills under the relevant levy order. 35. I am also unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the decision of the State Government to encourage setting up of such Mini Rice Mill as contained in the impugned notification, is a fraud on the statute or such a policy decision has been taken mala fide to cover up the inability of the State Government to deal effectively with the illegal husking mill owners and for the purpose of giving premium to such offenders. It is true, as it appears from the impugned notification, that one of the purpose of such policy decision is to discourage the growing proliferation of husking mills operating with cut licence and the same therefore is in public interest. It is not however understood as to how by the State Government's action in encouraging the setting up of Mini Rice Mills or convertion of the existing Husking Mill to Mini Rice any premium will be given to the offenders who are carrying on Husking Mill operation without any licence. Nowhere it has been provided that such offenders will be entitled to operate such mini rice mill without permit or licence under the Act. 36. Nowhere it has been provided that such offenders will be entitled to operate such mini rice mill without permit or licence under the Act. 36. One of the objects of the said Act is to ensure the modernisation of conventional type of rice mill with a view to increased production of rice and production better quality of rice and therefore the decision of the State Government to encourage setting up of mini rice mill which is nothing but modernised rice mill and a new scientific innovation for modernising milling operation to achieve the purposes indicated in the notification for public interest is very much in consonance is the object of the said Act and is not at all arbitrary or mala fide. 37. It is the fundamental right of every citizen to carryon of a business or occupation of his choice under Article 19(1)(g) subject to the reasonable restriction imposed thereunder. The provisions of the Rice Milling Industries Regulation Act do not put any restriction in the matter of carrying on rice milling operation but the same is regulatory in nature which again can only be imposed by the union legislature which can legislate on the subject. Under such circumstances if the State Government would have attempted by innovation of such mini rice mills to take out the same from the purview of the aforesaid Act the same would have been ultra vires the provision of the said Act and without jurisdiction. By the impugned notification however the State Government on the contrary has absolutely made it clear that the provision of the said Act and Rules will be made applicable to the said Act, as indeed the same have to be so applicable. As mini rice mill is also a rice mill within the meaning of the, said Act and will carryon rice milling operation within the meaning of the said Act, the procedure for granting permit and licence under the said Act have been provided for both under the said Act and Rules made thereunder and before granting a permit under the said Act the requisite investigations as contained under Section 5 of the, aid Act are to be carried out. Under such circumstances in case of mini rice mill also the same procedure have to be followed and whether in the particular case the distance bar is relevant or not will be decided by the Licensing Authority in a particular case in accordance with law. 38. It is also not to be overlooked as it will appear from the said notification itself that such mini rice mill owners will confine their business to commercial milling and they will also be entitled to sell the rice after fulfilment of their obligation of levy. 39. It appears to this Court that although the aforesaid notification has been challenged by the petitioners on a number of grounds as aforesaid the real purpose of the petitioner is to prevent introduction of such mini rice mills and thereby to prevent further competitors in the business; but the same however cannot be a ground of challenge of the said notification for the reasons stated hereinabove. There is no merit in the writ application. The writ application therefore fails and the same is hereby dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. 40. There will be no order as to costs. 41. It may be noted that in all the connecting writ petitioners each of the writ petitioner challenged the inaction on the part of the Licensing Authority under the said Act in the matter of granting permit and licence for establishing and operating mini rice mill. Since the respondents in each of such writ petition was unable to take any final decision on such application of the petitioners in view of the injunction granted in the above mentioned writ petition as aforesaid, writ petitions were heard along with the present writ petition. 42. Now that the instant writ petition of the West Bengal Licensed Husking Mill Federation bas been dismissed and the Interim order stand vacated, each of the connecting writ petition is disposed of without any costs directing the Licensing Authority to consider and dispose of the applicati6n made by the petitioner for establishment and operating of a Mini Rice Mill in accordance with law and particularly the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder after giving hearing to the petitioner within two months from the communication of the order. In the event in any of such writ petition, the Licensing Authority after consideration of the application in accordance with law bas already found that the same is fit case for grant of permit and licence, the Licensing Authority in such a case may issue the permit and the licence to the concerned petitioner without delay. 43. Learned Advocate appearing for the West Bengal Licensed Husking Mills Federation & Ors. who is one of the petitioners in the case, prays for stay of the order, the prayer is considered and refused. If XEROX certified copy in applied for, the same shall be given as expeditiously as possible but not later than three weeks after summer vacation.