Court upholds denial of benefits to roller flour mills under Industrial Policy Resolutions.

The court upheld the District Industries Centre's decision to deny eligibility certificates and benefits to roller flour mills under the Industrial Policy Resolutions, 1989 and 1996. Despite arguments from the petitioners that roller flour mills should be considered distinct from traditional flour mills and eligible for incentives, the court ruled that roller flour mills fell within the definition of "flour mills" in the policy. As a result, the petitioners' claims were rejected, and the writ petitions were dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to refusal of eligibility certificates under Industrial Policy Resolutions, 1989 and 1996 for roller flour mills.

Analysis:
The petitioners, who established roller flour mills in Orissa, sought benefits under the Industrial Policy Resolutions, 1989 and 1996. The District Industries Centre informed them that roller flour mills were not eligible for incentives under the policy. The exclusion entry "flour mills" in the policy was the basis for denying benefits to roller flour mills. The petitioners argued that roller flour mills were distinct from traditional flour mills and should be eligible for benefits. They cited clarifications from other states and officials supporting their claim. However, the court emphasized that only by proving roller flour mills were not included in the term "flour mills" in the policy could the petitioners be entitled to relief.

The petitioners relied on legal precedents to argue that the term "flour mills" should be interpreted in common parlance and exemptions should be construed liberally to provide benefits wherever possible. On the other hand, the Government Advocate contended that roller flour mills fell within the purview of the exclusion clause for flour mills in the policy. The court noted that the differences between roller flour mills and traditional flour mills, such as investment and processing capabilities, did not change the fact that roller flour mills were encompassed within the term "flour mills" in the policy.

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the capital investment and nature of the industry should qualify roller flour mills as agro food processing units eligible for benefits. It upheld the District Industries Centre's interpretation of the exclusion clause as reasonable and not arbitrary. The court concluded that roller flour mills fell within the definition of "flour mills" in the policy and were not entitled to benefits. Therefore, the refusal to issue eligibility certificates and benefits under the Industrial Policy Resolutions, 1989 and 1996 was justified, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.

In a unanimous decision, the court dismissed the writ petitions and directed each party to bear their respective costs.

---