is clearly wrong. It is one thing to stop the transfer made as a make belief affair and putting it in the name of another entity only in order to get over the disqualification of blacklisting or being termed as defaulter but quite another to say that there cannot be transfer by means of either a lease or a conveyance to another person and such a lessee or a purchaser should also be termed to be defaulter or a blacklisted mill. The Scheme which refers to a defaulter does not make the rice mill itself as a defaulter. A legal fiction could be extended only in so far as law would permit. For example, a company that is not an individual, who can breathe or walk can still be a person by a fiction enacted through the provisions of the Companies Act. The same way a legal entity could be attributed to a partnership by the fiction introduced by the Partnership Act. A defaulter mill must be understood as a person, as a legal entity, who owns the mill or who is a lessee of a mill or who is a Director of the company that owns. All that the Scheme does is that if an owner, partner or director of a rice mill, which is run on ownership basis or on the basis of lease also becomes an owner or a partner or a director to a new mill, then such a mill in question will not be considered for allotment. In other words, the identity of a person in the old mill as well as in the new mill must be homogenous in some way as an owner or as a partner or as director. Such an owner or a partner or a director could either be a owner of the mill or as a lessee of the mill, if a new entity such as a new mill comes into the hands of a lessee from an owner or a partner or a director, who is a distinct individual and that person is not in any way connected to the earlier entity, then such a new entity cannot be found to be disqualified for allotment.”
