PERIAMMAL Vs. VALARMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein challenges the order passed in W.P.No.1077 of 1997, whereby the communication sent by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, dated 2.7.1996 has been quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that the said communication amounted to a direction to cancel the licence for running a Rice Mill which was granted to Valarmathi the first respondent herein. A short summary of the facts would be necessary. THE first respondent Valarmathi is a licencee. This licence has been awarded by the Village Panchayat Union for installing and running a rice mill. It seems that in pursuance of that licence, when the rice mill was being run the appellants herein made complaints against the said licensee to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, the second respondent herein. It further seems that in pursuance of that complaint, the fourth respondent cancelled that licence, even without hearing the present first respondent. THErefore, a writ petition came to be filed which was registered as Writ Petition No.11713 of 1997. This writ petition was allowed and it was held by the single Judge of this Court that the said cancellation could not be effected unless the licensee, that is the present first respondent was given an opportunity of being heard. It seems that there were civil suits filed on behalf of the present appellant on the ground of nuisance allegedly created by the running of the rice mill and it also seems that the civil litigation is now over. We are not concerned with the question of nuisance herein. We are, however, concerned with the question of the grant of the continuance of the licence. Learned single Judge, as has already been pointed out, observed in his order in the following terms: ?I am satisfied that the first respondent has erred in passing the impugned order without giving notice to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, I quash the impugned order dated 25.7.1991 leaving it open to the parties to prefer proper appeals if provided by the relevant situation like the District Municipalities Act or Tamil Nadu Public Health Act.? It seems that thereafter the present appellant filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench clarified that this order amounted to an open remand. It was explained by the Division bench that the questions could not be said to have been finally decided since the learned single Judge had passed an order which could be construed as one of open remand without deciding the issues between the parties. Now probably therefore treating this as an open remand, the second respondent Director issued a communication dated 2.7.1996. He has pointed out as many as about 12 defects and he has requested that a necessary show cause notice should be issued to the licensee, the first respondent herein. THE concluding part of this letter is as follows:

(2.) TAKING this communication to be an order passed by the second respondent, the first respondent again filed a writ petition, which came to be registered as W.P.No.1077 of 1997. Learned single Judge heard this writ petition along with the Second Appeal which pertains to the question of nuisance which was being created because of the rice mill. We are not concerned here with the judgment of the civil court or the judgment of the learned single Judge in that Second Appeal. Learned single Judge has dismissed the Second Appeal. However, along with it he also disposed of the Writ Petition No.1077 of 1997 by a separate judgment. The present appeal pertains to the judgment in Writ Petition No.1077 of 1997 alone.

(3.) HOWEVER, we make it clear that in case the Commissioner, Town Panchayat Union decides to issue a show cause notice he may do so; but in deciding the matter after the issuance of show cause notice he shall not be required to be bound by the observations made in the communication dated 3.7.1996. He shall independently apply his mind and shall give an opportunity to all the parties, who are desirous to represent themselves.