G VARADARAJU Vs. DIST REVENUE OFFICER MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent made in Roc.P.5/38600/81 dt. 15-4-1981 and to direct the first respondent to forbear from issuing any permit under the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act 1958, to the respondents 3 and 4 for opening a rice mill at A. Vellodu village.

(2.) It is stated in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, that the authorities have recommended that 16000 bags of paddy is produced from the Adianuthu village. This is factually incorrect and contrary to the Revenue Records. The authorities have not perused the crop register to ascertain the facts. If only the first respondent had perused the crop records for the fasli 1387, 1388 and 1389 he could have come to a conclusion about the total quantum of paddy cultivated in the area. Moreover, the public from the Adianuthu village will use only the rice mills situated in Dindigul town and they will not come to the rice mill to be started in A. Vellodu village. In short, without ascertaining the valid accounts, crop register, adangal extract, the authorities have wrongly reported that the paddy production is sufficient in the villages warranting establishment of a new rice mill. It is further pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that, as per the Revenue records, Adianuthu village is having 162.71 acres of single crop wet land and out of this only 26-32 acres are cultivated and A. Vellodu village is having 99-40 single crop wet land. The total quantity of paddy cultivatable from the area cannot be more then 2500 bags.

(3.) Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, when there is no sufficient proof to show that there was adequate production of paddy, so as to cater to the hulling needs of the mill, it is not necessary, that apart from the petitioner's mill, licence should be granted to the other mills. The relevant provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act 1958 have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan, on the other hand, Mr. Samuel, learned Government Advocate and Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, have relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in Thangathammal v. Secy. Food Department (1977) 2 Mad LJ 221 and have submitted that there is no prohibition for licence being given to the mills, which are required to be started in that locality.