Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 73 (PAT)

B. M. Bhuri & Sonss v. Union of India

1998-01-28

CHAUDHARY S.N.MISHRA

body1998
Order After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner, namely, B.M. Bhuri & Sons through its proprieter Subodh Prasad Bhuri has challenged the order dated 8.1.1996 whereby the prayer for grant of arms manufacturing licence has been rejected by the respondent Union of India and also the order dated 7.2.1996 by which the decision of the Govt. of India was communicated to the petitioner through the Joint Secretary to Govt. of Bihar. Copies of the said orders are made Annexures 16 and 17 respectively to this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the correctness and validity of the said orders mainly on the ground that the State Government having recommended for grant of arms manufacturing licence to the petitioner, the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home, has illegally and without any valid reason rejected the prayer of the petitioners for grant of arms manufacturing licence. Learned counsel for the petitioner while developing his argument has referred to various documents in order to show that the petitioner-firm fulfilled all the requirements for grant of such licence and the same having been accepted by the State Government, the Union of India has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. It is further alleged that the Union of India while rejecting the recommendation of the State Government with respect to grant of arms manufacturing licence to the petitioner has made a discrimination between the petitioner-firm as well as other similarly situated firms. 2. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5, District Magistrate, Munger, wherein, inter alia, it is stated that late Banwari Lal Bhuri, father of Subodh Prasad Bhuri, the proprietor of the firm, has violated the order of the then District Magistrate, as a result the licence was cancelled as far back as in the year 1951 itself. The said licence was cancelled on the ground that the order of the then District Magistrate directing the licensee to shift the gun factory within the jail premises vide his order dated 22.9.51 has not been complied with resulting the cancellation of the licence. It is further alleged that altogether 36 gun manufacturing units exist in the town of Munger. Against the said cancellation of licence, no appeal and/or revision has been filed which has become final. It is further alleged that altogether 36 gun manufacturing units exist in the town of Munger. Against the said cancellation of licence, no appeal and/or revision has been filed which has become final. It is further alleged that since the licence already stands cancelled and after expiry of 45 years the question of restoration of the licence does not arise at all. It is further alleged that Govt. of India took a policy decision in 1948 for grant of arms manufacturing licence to the effect that manufacturing of arms and ammunition is exclusively the monopoly of Govt. of India and it subsequently took a policy in the year 1956 which was communicated to the State Government vide order dated 8th March, 1957, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the major decision including fresh licence for manufacturing of arms and ammunition in the private sector has been prohibited with immediate effect. Similarly, the Union of India has filed a counter affidavit wherein, inter alia, it is stated in paragraph 5 as follows : "That it is most relevant to make a preliminary objections making an earnest submission that the policy regarding manufacture of arms and ammunition in the private sector is based on Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956. According to the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956 manufacture of arms and ammunition was to be the exclusive monopoly of the Central Government. The Policy guidelines issued by the Central Government on 8th March, 1957 in pursuance of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956 stipulate interalia that only the units that were existing at that time (i.e. on 8.3.57) were to be allowed to continue the manufacturing activities and that no fresh licence for manufacture of arms and ammunition in the private sector were to be granted. (A copy of the said policy guidelines is annexed as Annexure A). As already stated supra, the gun manufacturing licence No.1/25 in the name of M/s B.M. Bhuri & Sons was cancelled in the year 1951 and it is not in continuance since then. In other words, on the crucial date i.e. 8.3.57 stipulated under policy guidelines issued in pursuance of Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956, the licence (No.1/25) of the petitioner firm was neither operational nor in existence. As such, the question of grant/restoration of licence of petitioner firm does not arise." 3. In other words, on the crucial date i.e. 8.3.57 stipulated under policy guidelines issued in pursuance of Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956, the licence (No.1/25) of the petitioner firm was neither operational nor in existence. As such, the question of grant/restoration of licence of petitioner firm does not arise." 3. Having regard to the materials on record and the facts stated above, it stands admitted that the firm, in question, was granted licence on 1.4.25 by the State authority, the said licence was suspended in 1949 and ultimately cancelled in the year 1951. The Union of India issued guidelines on 8th March, 1957 pursuant to the said Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956 which stipulated, inter alia, that only those units which exist on or before 8.3.57 were allowed to continue the manufacturing activities and no fresh licence for manufacturing the same shall be granted to any private sector. The impugned order has been passed keeping in view the said policy decision of the Union of India. The petitioner after lapse of so many years has made a representation in the year 1992 to the Union of India for the reliefs sought for in this writ application. It is true that from the documents annexed to the writ application go to show that some correspondence were going on between the State as well as the Union of India but that will not, in any way, affect the policy decision already taken by the respondent Union of India. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings of the parties in this writ application, I do not find any illegality in the order under challenge in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.