RACHEL OOMMEN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's husband one Sri. C. K. Oommen had been issued a licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act and the rules for conducting a rice mill at Thumpamon in Chengannur Taluk. He died on 19-11-1969 as a result of sudden heart attack. THE petitioner who is his widow and heir-at-law applied in that capacity to the District Collector, Alleppey for the grant of a licence in her name taking into account the devolution of the ownership in the mill that took place by virtue of the demise of her late husband. That application was rejected by the District Collector in a summary fashion as per the order Ext. P4 dated 20 111970 which reads:

(2.) I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order does not evidence a proper disposal by the District Collector of the petitioner's application for recognising the change of ownership and for consequent issuance of the licence for the rice mill in her favour. Ordinarily, on the death of the licensee the undisputed heir, if there is one, is entitled to the grant of a licence in his favour unless there is something which personally disqualifies him for holding such a licence. There is nothing in ext. P4 to indicate that the petitioner suffers from any such disqualification so as to render her unsuitable for the grant of a licence under the Rice milling Industry (Regulation) Act. What is stated is Ext. P4 is "there is no reason to issue a fresh licence in her name. " This approach is wholly wrong because ordinarily, subject to whatever lawful restrictions that have been imposed by the statute, every citizen of this country has a fundamental right to carry on a business, profession or trade. This aspect does not appear to have been properly appreciated by the 1st respondent when he passed the impugned order.