(1) This writ petition calls in ques - tion the order of the collector vizianaga - ram, in d. Dis. No. 6315/81 dt. 14 - 7 - 1911 by and under which the collector, while renewing rice - milling licences issued to the petitioners under the rice millirjg industry (regulation) act, 1958 upto 31 - 3 - 1982, called upon the petitioners to modernise the rice millers before applying for further renewal. The petitioners seek a declaration that section 6 (4) 'of the aet, under which they were asked to moder - nise their rice mills before applying for renewal is unconstitutional. They seek a further direction against the respondent to renew their licences without insisting on the modernise of the single huller type rice mills operated by the petitioners.
(2) The 1st petitioner - association comprises of members who run single huller type rice mills in vizianagaram dis - trict. They operate the rice mills under the licence issued by the district collector. When, for the year 1982 - 83, they applied for renewal of their licences, they were asked to modernise their rise mills by attaching single mini shuller to their exis - ting single huller rice mills. As they failed to comply with that direction, the licencse were not renewed. However, under the orders of this court, they were renewed from time to time so much so all of them hold licences renewed upto 31 - 3 - 83 it is the case of the petitioners that it is impossible to carry out the directions of the collector firstly for the reason that the space available in the existing single huller rice mills is not sufficient to install a single mini shuller and secondly because a single mini shuller would now cost not less than rs. 30, 000/ - to install and lastly because the single huller rise mills are useful tor hulling small quantities of rice and a single mini shuller is unfit for hulling less than 20 kgs. Of paddy. They also point out that, if mini shuller is installed, the customers, who are mainly cultivators, will suffer loss of the cattle feed, as fine husk and rise bran are not recoverable under by the new process. According to the petitioners the conditions required to be complied with impose an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade and business and thus violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of india. Further, according to the petitioners, this is also not warranted by the provision of section 6 (4) of the act.
(3) In the counter - affidavit, it is asserted that the government of india has issued instructions for moderinsation of rice mills with a view to increase the output of rice, reduce the percentage of broken rice and minimise the wastage. Tha mill - owners were given sufficiently long time to modernise their rice mills. The government of india, in its letter no. 16 (genl) (i) /81 0 and r. I. Dated 29 - 6 81 (communicated in ref no. W3/2509/81 dt 4 - 9 - 1981 of the commissioner of civil supplies hyderabad) has granted fime for two more years i. E. Upto 29 - 7 - 1s83 for modernising the rice mills. This extension of time limit was also made applicable to single huller rice mills engaged in trading activity in govern - merit of india's letter dated 1 - 12 - 1981 and communicated in ref w3/4397/81 dated 22 - 12 - 1981 of the commissioner of civil supplies, hyderabad. The single huller rice mill licences were renewed for the year 1981 - 82 subject to the condition that the rice mills are modernised before the next date of renewal. The petitioners have not availed of this opportunity and are now insisting on the renewal of licences without modernising their rice mills. It is also assert that the modernisation would increase the output of rice about 6%and that even after modernisation, bran and husk would be available and that the attachment of mini - shuller would result in minimising the percentage of broken rice and other wastage.
(4) There cannot be any dispute that installation of mini shuller would reduce wastage, and increase recovery of rice from the paddy huller. This is not only in the interests of the public in general, but also in the interests of the millers themselves. Foodgrains are essential commodities the supply of which is an obligation of the welfare state. If for conserving paddy a recovery of more rice, the millers are directed to modernise their mills by installation of single shullers to the single huller rice mills, that direction cannot be said to be arbitrary. The power to enforce the conditions for modernising the existing rice mills vested under sec. 6 (4) of the act, which reads as under.
"a licencee granted under this section shall be valid for the period specified therein and may be renewed from time to for such period and petent of such fees and on such 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 may be prescribed."
So far as this provision goes, thrlicensing authorities is empowered to impose such conditions as it deems fit including such conditions as to improvements to existing machinery and replacement of existing machinery. It is also direct the use of improved method of rice mill that the installation of single mini shuller will improve the rice milling operations cannot be in doubt in as much as 6% of more rice is recovered from the milled. The power vested in the authority under sec. 6 (4) of the act cannot be termed as unbriddled, unguidedor arbitrary power si as to strike down the provision as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under the constitution of india. That provision enjoins the licensing authority to insist upon the using of improved methods of rice - milling or improvement to the existing machinery or replacement of the existing machinery as may be necessaiy to eliminate waste obtain maximun production and improve quality. This criteria lays down sufficient guidelines for the licensing authority to exercise the power of imposing conditions in the matter of renewing the licence. The conditions imposed by the district collector viz the attachment of a single mini shuller to the existing single huller rice mills is certainly calculated to achieve the objects of sec. 6 (4) of the act viz. To eliminate waste, obtain maximum production and improve quality of rice. We are therefore unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner mr. V. Jagannadha rao, that sec. 6 (4) vests an arbitrary power in the licensing authority in the matter of renewal of the existing licences. The conditions imposed also cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable so as to effect the fundamental rights of the petitioners. It was urged that a producer of paddy, who wants 1o mill paddy cannot be required to install a single mini shuller at a cost of rs. 30. 000/ -. It is cleaily stated in the counter affidavit that this condition was imposed only upon single huller rice mills engaged in trading activity and not on such rics mills which are milling paddy {or their own consumption. In any event as the condition now imposed is calculated towards the recovery of more rice and improved quality of rice it cannot be said be unreasonable or violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
(5) Mr. Jagannadha rao the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the licences have been renewed upto 31 - 3 - 1984 and the period of nearly nine months would not be sufficient to enable them to modernise the rice mills at such a huge cost. We must observe that the petitioners had already been given sufficiently long time for modernising their rice mills. That apart it is not for this court to grant any further time to modernise the rice mills. It is for the licensing authority to consider if the facts and circumstances of the case justify the grant of any further time to modernise the rice mills. Nothing stated herein would affect the discretion of the licensing authority.
(6) Subject to the observations made above this writ petition is dimissed no. Coasts. Advocate's fee rs, 160/ -.