LAWS(KER)-1984-1-7

MYTHEEN KUNJUKUNJU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On January 10, 1984
MYTHEEN KUNJUKUNJU Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who claims to be running a rice mill in ward V of Paipra Panchayat seeks to quash an order Ext. P2 passed by (the district Collector, the 1st respondent herein, in favour of the 4th respondent herein. THE third respondent was running a mill in Ward No. 1 of the same panchayat. He sold the mill to one Aliyaru, who in turn sold the same to the 4th respondent some time in 1974. Before the sale, the 3rd respondent had shifted the mill in question from Ward No. I to Ward No. V, according to the petitioner, in violation of the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'act', and the Rules framed thereunder. THE licence issued in favour of the 3rd respondent was therefore cancelled and this order of cancellation was challenged by him before this Court in O. P. No. 99/ 75 in which the petitioner herein got himself impleaded as an additional respondent. That original petition was dismissed with a direction that the 3rd respondent can pursue his remedy in an appeal as provided under the Act. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Trivandrum , who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the first respondent for disposal afresh. Ext. P2 order was thereafter passed by the 1st respondent, as per which there is a direction to grant licence in respect of the rice mill in ward V to the fourth respondent.

(2.) STRONGLY attacking this order Ext. P2 Sri Lathiff, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner urged the following points: (i)The first respondent failed to note that the mill involved in the case is a new mill coming under S. 3 (e) of the Act and the order is therefore vitiated as no permit has been granted as required under the Act in favour of 4th respondent in respect of this mill. (ii) The authority also seriously erred in overlooking the fact that it was without the prior approval as contemplated under S. 8 (3) (c)of the Act that the rice mill was shifted from Ward No. I to Ward No. V?