PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises for determination in these writ applications. The petitioners in these petitions it is said, are aggrieved by the grant of permits pursuant to S. 5 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, to respondents 3 and 4 in O. P. No. 2878 and the 3rd respondent in O. P. No. 2342. The petitioners are those who had obtained permits earlier and had obtained licences and were carrying on the business of rice milling. Their case is that due to the proximity of the new mills permitted to be commenced near the place where their rice mills are situate, they are adversely affected.

(2.) THE grounds on which the permits issued to the respondents mentioned above are challenged are that the statute requires a quasi-judicial determination as to whether a permit should be granted to an applicant and since the petitioners are those who are likely to be affected by such grant of permits, they should have been heard. THE complaint of the petitioners is that they have not been heard and that they were not aware of any enquiry conducted as contemplated by S. 5 (4) of the Act. If any such enquiry had been conducted and any materials had been collected, those materials should have been made available to the petitioners.

(3.) IT is not as though in all cases where a decision should be taken on facts to be ascertained before it is decided to issue or refuse a licence or permit, the enquiry and the decision are of a quasi-judicial nature. So T have to conclude that the contention is not well founded. I think the true position is what is stated in Rex v. Richmond confirming Authority, Howitt, Ex parte reported in LR. (1921) 1kb. 248. The learned Chief Justice enunciated the principle thus: "i believe that to be the true principle upon which this court acts. Here the applicant had an interest distinct from the general inconvenience which may be suffered by the law being wrongly administered. " No doubt Their Lordships in that case considered a statute wherein provision had been made that notice should be issued before the question is determined. Even when there is no such provision, the position must be the same.