CHANDRAKANT SAHA & ORS. ETC . versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 14-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
I 
•• 
CHANDRAKANT SAHA & ORS. ETC . 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. 
September 14, 1978 
751 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, 
P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.) 
Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, as anwnded by the A111endi11g 
Act 29 of 1968--Section 3(d) (i) and (ii), whether to be tear/ co11junctively 
in the light of Sec. 3A, 3(gg) of the Act-Interpretation of Sections 3(d), 
3(.k'g), 3A, 5 and 6--Whcther classification a,~ Rice Miller & Rice llulfrr dis-
crin-1inatory offending Art. 14 of the Constitut(on-Whether the provisions of the 
Act which insi'st on the rice-hullers to take licences is an unreasonable restriction 
on their right to carry on the business and violatire of Aritclcs 19 and 301 of 
the Constitution. 
The Rice Milling Industry (Ilegu1ation) Act was passed in 1958, the object 
and reasons of which were to preserve and protect the indigenous and hand 
pounding industry of rice growers RO atS to provide sufficient employment to 
rural population and to ensure the modernisation of conventional type of rice 
mills \Vith a vie\v to producing more rice of better quality and nutritive value. 
Since the original Act did not include the rice hullers, by the Amendment Act 
29 of 1968, Sec. 3(d) was substitued viz. "Milling rice, with it grammritical 
variation, means (i) recovering rice or any produce thereof from paddy; (ii) 
poli!hing rice with the a.id of power". 
Under Section 5 read with Section 3A, 
the petitioners \Vere required to take licences for operating their husling mills. 
'The petit;oners, therefore. assailed (a) that the requirement Of t<.·king licences for 
operating their n1ills amotmted to complete destruction of their fundamental 
rights to carry on business and (b) that the provisions of the Act further contain 
unguided nnd uncana1ised powers so as to viola·te the provisions of !\rt. 1-t.. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
Hf:LD: (1) A.n analysis of the provisions of Sections 3(d), 3A, 5, 6 and 
7 indicates that the provisions contained sufficient guidelines and do not a1nount 
to exercise of an arbitrary power. 
[759B] 
(2) Having regard to the setting in \Vhich Sec. 3(d) is placed and the 
domin&nt object of the Amending Act 29 of 1968, the intention of the Legis· 
lature v.1as to widen the purpose and scope of the definition of mi1ling rice. 
Tf Clause (i) and (ii) are read conjunctively then, it will defeat the very purpose 
of the Act and would in fact become meaningless because claute (i) which 
means reco~'ering rice or any product thereof from paddy \Vould include pro~ 
ducts like chura etc. which do not require polishing and yet if the hvo clauses 
~lore read conjunctively chura will have to be polished within the meaning of 
Section 3(d), which could not have been contemplated 
by 
the 
legislature. 
Furthern1ore, polishing rice under Section 3(gg) includes the process of removal 
of bran fro1n the. kernel of rice with 
the aid 
of power 
and that 
is what 
the rice hullers do. Thus on a true interpretation of Sec. 3(d) clauses (i) and 
(ii) and (gg) there can be absolutely no doubt that the section includes tho 
14-549 S.CI/78 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] l s.c.11.. 
operation carried out by the rice hullers. Though it was not necessary for the 
legislature to have added Sec. 3(A), it was done in order to put the mattel' 
beyond doubt or controversy. 
[760B·D, E, 761D-E] 
(3) Rice-ntlllers and rice hullers constitute a separate class and having regard 
to the nature of their functions the cla6sification is reasonable, because ( 1) it 
is founded upon intelligible ditferentia, (2) the differentia has rational relation 
to the objects, sought to be achieved by the Act namely, the protection of the 
domestic hand-pounding industry and improvement of the quality of the rice 
and ensuring its easy and quick distribution. The contention tha.t the Act by 
bringing the rice hullers and rice milters within t·he same fold see1ns to lreat 
unequals as equals, because rice hullers cannot be equated with rice-millers is 
not correct. 
f7~2B·Cl 
(4) Sections 5 and 6 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act .. 1958 
do not amount to unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry 
on their trade ood business. 
In the first place, the licensing provision is in 
public interest and is meant to carry out the purpose of the Act. Secondly, 
sections 5 and 6 are purely regu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.