Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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"]

Similar News