MAINA BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY tin's application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the state Government, communicated to her by a letter addressed in her by the collector of Balaghat on 22nd May 1964, rejecting her application for the grant of a permit under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, thereinafter referred to as the Act), for establishing a new rice-mill. She has also made the prayer that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the State government for granting a permit to her under the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner applied on 2nd January 1961, in the form prescribed by the Rice milling Industry. (Regulation and Licensing) Rules, 1959, (hereafter called 'rules')for the grant of a permit in establish a shelter type new rice-mill at Katangi in balaghat District. On receipt of the application, the State Government asked her in supply information on certain points, obtain a clearance certificate and furnish a corrected plan of the proposed rice-mill which, as originally submitted by her, was found to be defective. Ultimately on 22nd May 1964, the Collector, Balaghat, informed the petitioner that the Government had rejected her application for the grant of a permit for selling up a shelter type rice mill at Katangi. The petitioner contends that the rejection of her application was arbitrary; that there was a pressing need for the establishment of a new rice-mill at Katangi; and that some persons, who had applied for the grant of permit for setting up rice-mills in katangi after her, were actually granted permits by the State Government, whereas she was denied the permit and thus she was discriminated against.

(3.) IT was argued by Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in the matter of the grant of permit under Section 5 of the Act the competent authority exercised a quasi-judicial function under Sections 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the Act; that, therefore, the State Government was bound to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting her application and was also required to give its reasons for the rejection; and that as the order of rejection communicated to the applicant by the Collector's letter dated 22nd May 1964 did not contain any reasons for the refusal of the permit and was passed behind the back of the applicant, it was illegal. In reply, Shri Bhave, learned government Advocate, contended that in considering the question whether a permit should or should not be granted under Section 5 of the Act, the State government was not under any obligation to act judicially or quasi-judicially at any stage; that the question of the grant or refusal of a permit was an administrative matter; and being so, the State Government was not bound to give a hearing to the petitioner before rejecting her application. It was said that the State government actually intimated to the Collector, Balaghat, that there was no scope for the establishment of any more rice-mill al Katangi and hence the petitioner's application for a permit was rejected by the State Government; that no person who had applied subsequently to the applicant was granted a permit for the establishment of a new rice-mill; and that the persons, to whom the petitioner had made a reference in paragraph-7 of her petition, were granted permission for expansion of their mills and not permits for setting up new rice-mills.