V RANGARAJU Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's Sri Shanmugha Rice Mills is situated in Thondamandurai Village, Perambalur Taluk. Through the power agent of the petitioner's maternal grandfather the petitioner purchased the rice mill under a registered sale deed on 12-5-1993. It is alleged in the affidavit that the rice mill has been in exclusive possession, management and enjoyment of the petitioner's vendor ever since 1970 and that the petitioner had purchased the mill for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,01,000/-along with the accessories, licence etc. It seems the rice mill stands in the name of one Krishnaswmi Reddiar (petitioner's vendor's grandfather) for the period ending with 31-3-1994. The petitioner had applied for the grant of licence in accordance with the condition No. 6 stipulated in the licence in Form IV under Rule 4(4) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation and Licensing) Rules, 1959. The application has been made in Form III as prescribed by the said Rules, by the petitioner. The petitioner has been informed by the respondent on 22-6-1993 that the application dated 'nil' of the petitioner will be enquired and the licence will be transferred to the petitioner's name, a copy of which has been sent to the District Supply Officer for making an enquiry and submit a report within 15 days. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent to hold the enquiry for issuance of licence under S. 6 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act, is illegal and unwarranted and that the respondent as Licensing Authority is bound to grant licence without holding any enquiry. It is also stated that the Licensing Authority is bound to grant licence so long as the petitioner continues to be the owner of the rice mill and there cannot be any extraneous consideration for grant of licence. It is also stated that the respondent is only concerned with the registered sale deed and other documents placed before him to prove the ownership of the rice mill and in other words, the subjective satisfaction of the Licensing Authority. It is also stated that the respondent has no jurisdiction to withhold the licence indefinitely and thereby stall the operation of the rice mill.

(3.) Mr. V. P. Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once a permit has been granted to run a rice mill under the Act and the licence has been issued under S. 6 of the Act whenever a transfer of licence or a fresh licence is applied for, the Licensing Authority has no Jurisdiction to hold any enquiry. According to learned counsel, once an application for licence is made in Form III under Rule 4 the Licensing Authority has no option but to grant or renew a licence and it is not open to the licensing Authority to make any sort of enquiry. Learned counsel refers to sub-sec. (3) of S. 6 of the Act and states that on receipt of any such application for the grant of a licence, the licensing Officer shall grant the licence on such conditions. In other words, learned counsel states that the Act does not contemplate any enquiry when a licence is applied for. Enquiry is contemplated under S. 5 of the Act only. According to learned counsel, the impugned intimation to the petitioner has been made wholly without jurisdiction, and the respondent is bound to grant the licence immediately as soon as the application is made according to the rules.