MUNIAMMAL Vs. VADAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE respondent entered appearance by filing caveat, by consent, the revision was heard on merits. This revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gingee, to declare that the licence granted to the first defendant by defendants 2 to 7 to run a rice milling industry is invalid and to restrain the first defendant from running any such industry by a permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff, petitioner herein, that he is running a rice mill from 21.1.1993 and that he has taken electric connection for the said purpose. He also says that even before 21.1.1993, he has been conducting the rice mill and the electric connection was granted to him originally on 28.5.1991. IT is said that for running a rice mill, certain regulations are provided, one of which is that no licence should be granted for running a rice mill within a distance of 5 kms. After the expiry of the period, he applied for renewal, and the first defendant also applied for the same, and both of them have been granted licence for running rice mill. IT is said that he has taken financial assistance from various financial institutions, and if another competitor also comes, that will affect his prospects in business, and the licence granted by the authorities in favour of the first defendant is against law and ignoring the provisions of Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3.) AGAINST that order, first defendant filed C.M.A.No.42 of 1994. The lower appellate Court reconsidered the entire matter and came to the conclusion that the order of the trial Court is per se illegal. It came to the conclusion that the interim injunction itself should not have been granted when the affected person is not made a party to the application. It was also of the view that the very suit was not maintainable and plaintiff has no prima facie case. The Interim Order passed by the trial Court was vacated and the appeal was allowed. It is against the said judgment of the lower appellate Court, plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.