GUMUDU CHITTIBABU Vs. KOTNI NARASIMHA MURTY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff no.1's appeal against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The appellant and respondent no.3 as plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 are villagers of village-Hadubhangi in Parlakhemundi Sub-Division. Plaintiff no.1 is the owner of a rice mill and flour mill. Plaintiff no.2 is also the owner of a rice mill. There are two rice mills at village Hadubhangi and other two at village Vistala and Kinigam. The four rice mills situated in Hadubhangi Gram Panchayat. The licenses have been granted by the Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short, "the Act"). There is business rivalry between the plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.1. To wreck the personal vengeance, the defendant no.1 applied to the Government of Orissa in its Food and Civil Supplies Department for granting permission to establish a rice mill at Hadubhangi in March, 1985. Defendant no.1 in order to obtain permission assured that he will prepare Chuda (Flattened rice) in the rice mill and there is no such rice mill in the vicinity. The Government of Orissa in its Food and Civil Supplies Department granted permission to the defendant no.1 to establish a rice mill at Hadubhangi. Instead of constructing mill to prepare flattened rice, the defendant no.1 constructed a rice mill. The permission granted by the authorities expired in February, 1989. The license has not been renewed. Hadubhangi village is adjacent to the boundary line of Andhra Pradesh State. The quantity of paddy produced annually is not sufficient for the existing four mills to cover a quarter of a year. The village is thickly populated by economically backward classes. The guideline for establishing of a rice mill is under consideration of the Government. The Government of Orissa have decided that Panchayat should be considered as a unit for the purpose of considering the productivity so that the same may be taken as primary consideration. In utter disregard to the Government order and without renewal of permission, the defendant no.1 has been proceeding with construction of the rice mill. In the event the defendant no.1 establishes a rice mill, the same will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffs. With this factual scenario, the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant no.1 is that he has obtained permission under Sec.5 of the Act. He has completed the construction prior to filing of the suit. The defendant no.2-Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi, the licensing authority has also supported his case. According to the defendant no.2, after complying the provision made under Sec.5 of the Act, the permit has been issued to the defendant no.1 in the year 1987. The same has been renewed for the year 1988-89. The last date of renewal was on 1.9.88. The permit was valid till 2.89. On 21.89, he had submitted the completion report.