B RAMABHADRA RAJU Vs. RAGHUNANDA LAXMINARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. allowing writ Petition No. 5138 of 1978.

(2.) The first respondent herein applied for the grant of a permit for the establishment of a rice mill and the Commissioner, Civil Supplies granted the same by an order dated 1-11-1974 under the provisions of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This permit was valid for a period of six months. During this period, the first respondent erected a rice mill and purchased the requisite machinery. Even before the expiry of the six months period, on 30-4-1975 he made an application for the grant of a licence under Section 6 of the Act. The licence was granted on 17-7-1975. One of the existing rice millers filed a suit, O.S. No. 57 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Cheepurupalli, for a declaration that the grant of the licence to the first respondent was not valid and for a permanent injunction restraining him from running the rice mill. That suit was decreed. But on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the trial Court's decree and held that the rival rice miller was not entitled to file the suit and that he could only make his representation before the District Revenue Officer, who is empowered to cancel the licence on the ground of misrepresentation. That judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge has become final.

(3.) Thereafter, the rival rice miller, who is the appellant herein, made a representation to the District Revenue Officer stating that the writ petitioner had misrepresented that he had established the rice mill and obtained licence and as such the licence already granted should be cancelled. That objection found favour with the District Revenue Officer who held that the rice mill was not fully established by the day the application for the grant of licence was made under Section 6 of the Act. The first respondent carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, who confirmed the order of the District Revenue Officer and dismissed the appeal. As a result of the said order, the licence granted to the first respondent stood cancelled. These orders were questioned in the writ petition inter alia, on the ground that there was no misrepresentation as to any essential fact, that in fact the rice mill was constructed and the requisite machinery was also installed and only for the purpose of whitewashing it was removed and kept outside the building when the mill was inspected by the Commissioner appointed by the District Munsif while the suit was pending before him. The learned single Judge, on a review of the entire record, held that there was no misrepresentation as to any material fact which would justify the cancellation of the licence already issued to the first respondent who had constructed the building and also purchased the entire machinery and only electrical connections had to be made to the machinery. The appellant-third respondent got himself impleaded in the writ petition and opposed it. The learned single Judge after hearing him allowed the writ petition.