Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Instructions Cannot Have Retrospective Effect, Capacity Determination of Rice Mill Quashed

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, delivered a landmark judgment on 24th July 2023, setting a crucial precedent concerning the determination of capacity for Rice Mills. The case, bearing CWP-473-2023, involved M/S Kissan Rice Mills as the petitioner and the State of Punjab and others as respondents.

The dispute revolved around the capacity determination of the Rice Mill, which was installed by the petitioner in 2007. As per the guidelines prevailing at that time, the capacity of the Mill was determined as 4 MT (Metric Tons). However, in 2022, the respondents issued an order, Annexure P-7, reducing the capacity to 2 MT, citing modified instructions from 2010 that excluded leased land from the required parameters for capacity determination.

The core contention of the petitioner was whether the instructions of 2010 could be applied retrospectively to a Rice Mill that was installed in 2007. The petitioner’s counsel argued, “Instructions dated 20.08.2010 cannot be made applicable to already installed Rice Mill. It is settled proposition of law that executive instructions cannot have retrospective effect.”

In a significant development, the Hon’ble Justice Bansal upheld the petitioner’s stance, ruling that “capacity of the petitioner cannot be determined on the basis of 2010 instructions.” The court reiterated that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively, and the capacity determination should be based on the guidelines in force at the time of installation.

As a result, the impugned order, which reduced the capacity of the Rice Mill based on the question of land, was quashed. However, to address the issue regarding the plant and machinery, the court directed the parties to conduct a joint verification. The court further ordered the respondents to carry out the joint inspection within four weeks and pass a fresh order concerning the capacity of the Mill based on verified findings.

This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets a vital precedent, emphasizing the principle that executive instructions cannot have retrospective effect, protecting the rights of businesses that adhere to the guidelines in place at the time of their establishment. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future.

 Date of Decision: 24.07.2023 

M/S KISSAN RICE MILLS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/M_S_Kissan_Rice_Mills_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Others_on_24_July_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News