NAINAR SUNDARAM

The matters arise under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 21 pf 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question that arises for consideration and answer by us is as, to whether an existing rice mill owner could be stated to be 'an aggrieved person' in respect of a grant of a permit or a licence under the Act to another, so as to agitate the matter before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, (1969) 2 Mad LJ 79 : 1970 AIR(Mad) 136), a Full Bench of this Court took a generous view and upheld the locus standi of a licensee of an existing rice mill to apply for Writ of Certiorari to quash the grant of a permit for establishment of a new rice mill in the locality. The question was looked at and answered differently by the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v.N. Teekappa Gowda and Brothers, 1971 AIR(SC) 246, 1970 (1) SCC 575, 1970 (3) SCR 846 a case which arose under the Act. This view of the Supreme Court was reiterated by it in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, 1976 AIR(SC) 578, 1976 (1) SCC 671, 1976 (3) SCR 58 , which was a case under the Bombay Cinemas Regulation