PRATAP CHANDRA RAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 5 -2 -1990 (Annexure -16) passed by the Government in the Food and Civil Supplies Department cancelling the permit No. 10180 dated 6 -4 -1969 granted to the petitioner for installation of a rice mill over plot No. 1178 under Khata No. 27 in mouza Cadarupass, the petitioner has filed this writ application for the quashing thereof by certiorari.

(2.) THE gravamen of the allegations on which the permit is cancelled is the close vicinity of the rice mill to the Badatara U. P. School. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation is ultra vires the powers of the permit granting authority inasmuch as the power has net been vested in the said authority to cancel the permit on the ground stated. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have filed returns. It is stated in the returns that on several complaints received from the villagers and others to the effect that the location of the rice mill close to the school would disturb the tranquillity of the educational institution, an enquiry was conducted. On the report submitted action has been taken. The petitioner has appended to the writ application certificates from the Sarpanch of Badatara G.P. and the Headmaster of the very school whose tranquillity was alleged, likely to be disturbed. Therein they have stated that the rice mill was at a distance of 390 qtbs. and its operation would not disturb the school. In the counter, the deponent, an Under Secretary to the Government states that the petitioner by exercise of influence has obtained the certificate from the Sarpanch and the Headmaster. The allegations made are serious in nature affecting the functioning of public functionaries. Hence, the deponent should have been very cautious and circumspect before bringing such allegations. We, therefore, deprecate the same and do not take such statements into consideration.

(3.) UNDER Sub -rule (2)of Rule 3 of the Rules, the Government is further to investigate if the operation of the mill would have any adverse impact on the local economy, the pattern of trade and commerce in rice in the locality, the necessity or otherwise for an addition to the product capacity of the existing rice mills in the locality, whether hand -pounding industry in the locality is already well -organised and whether the establishment of a new rice mill is likely to affect adversely that industry and the scope for development of the hand -pounding industry in the locality. After going through the provisions of the Act, we find that though there is provision for revocation or suspension of licence, there is no provision for revocation or suspension of the permit. Once the prescribed authority was satisfied after taking into account the various factors enumerated in Sub -section (4) of Sec S and Sub -rule (2) of Rule 3 and in the absence of any positive proof of fraud or misrepresentation which could have influenced the permit granting authority to grant permit, cancellation of the permit on the ground that the operation of the mill would disturb the tranquillity of the school is untenable. We are of the view that the operation of the rice mill would not create such sound as would disturb the tranquillity of the school located at a distance of about (300 mts.) 1000 feet as stated in the counter affidavit. We, therefore, quash Annexure -16 as, in our opinion, the same is unreasonable and arbitrary, and allow the writ application. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner' that by order dated 6 -4 -1989 as per Annexure -2 the Government had already directed the Sub -Collector to grant the licence. Law would take its own course. We express no opinion thereon. No costs.