BABY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have examined the record and am satisfied that the grant of the permit to the 3rd respondent under S.5 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 was made after the investigation required by sub-section (4) of the Section and by R.3 (2) of the rules made under the Act. Neither the Act nor the rules require that, for arriving at a decision in the matter, notice should go to existing rice millers of the locality like the petitioner whose custom may suffer as a result of the establishment of a new mill. Or that they should be heard, or that abjections should be invited, so that they might have an opportunity of showing that the requirement of sub-section (3) of S.5 that a new mill is necessary for ensuring an adequate supply of rice is not satisfied. That, in terms of the section, is a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the Central Government or its delegate appointed under S.19. Nor do I think is there any question of natural justice, for, applying the principles laid down in (1947) 2 All E. R.289 and in (1952) I AH E. R.480 it seems to me clear that at no stage of the proceedings is the Central Government or its delegate or the investigating officer required to act judicially.

(2.) I dismiss the petition with costs (one set). Dismissed.