(1.) The petitioner is the owner of Dwarakantha Rice and Flour Mill situated in the village of Beerangi Kothakota in Chittoor district within the limits of the Panchayat of that village. The petitioner is the daughter of one Sunku Subbaramaiah, who constructed the rice mill in the year 1939 on the piece of land bearing S. No. 860. It is alleged in the affidavit of the petitioner in support of the writ petition that the said mill was constructed under a valid permission granted by the authorities and that valid licences had also been obtained. It is common ground that, from the year 1939 till the year 1962, the mill has been working under the licence first issued and later renewed from year to year by the Village Panchayat.
(2.) In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was called upon by the Executive Officer of Panchayat to send building and site plans of the rice mill. It is alleged by the petitioner that she had licence to work the mill till 31st March, 1963. But, it is alleged in the counter-affidavit of the Collector that the licence was last renewed up to 3ist March, 1962 only. The petitioner applied to the Collector for the grant of a licence apparently under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. In the counter-affidavit of the Collector, it is stated that, while the said application for renewal of the licence was pending, an objection petition stating that the mill was causing harm to public health was received on 1st February, 1963. Then, the Tahsildar, Madanapalli, inspected the mill and reported that the rice mill was very close to the dwelling houses and was causing disturbance to the residents of the locality. It is also alleged in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not produce the approved plans of the site and building of the rice mill. The District Health Officer inspected the premises of the mill and pointed out certain defects, which were enumerated in that paragraph. It is also stated in this counter-affidavit, that, according to the Explanation to section 8 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, the period of validity of the licence shall not be deemed to have expired, if an application for its renewal is pending before the licensing authority and that, in the present case, the application for renewal is still pending, and that only the licensee was directed to produce particulars to consider the application for renewal. It is also stated that it is obligatory on the part of all the factories and workshops to comply with and maintain the public health standards specified by the health authorities as prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 3688, Public Health, dated 3oth October, 1946. It is asserted that the petitioner is bound to comply with the directions issued to produce the site plans approved from the health point of view and that, under section 7 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, the Collector is even competent to suspend the licence, but that no such powers are exercised in this case.
(3.) Pursuant to the notice given by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, the petitioner submitted blue prints relating to the plan of the rice mill to the District Health Officer. The latter returned the same without approving the plans and by his order dated 16th June, 1963, he pointed out that the following defects have to be rectified :