Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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