Objection raised by existing mill owner against grant of a license for running a rice mill.

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 Act, 1953 and the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954. Taking note of the pronouncements of this Court, which came to be rendered subsequent to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, (1969) 2 Mad LJ79: 1970 AIR(Mad) 136), a Division Bench of this Court in Thangathammal, Proprietrix v. Secy. Food Dept., (1977) 90 Mad LW 396 held that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Narayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, (1969) 2 Mad LJ 79 : (AIR, 1970 Mad 136) is no longer good law.

2. In all these Writ Appeals, the learned single Judge followed the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in Thangathammal, Proprietiix v. Secy. Food Dept., (1977) 90 Mad LW 396 and dismissed the Writ Petitions at the instance of existing rice mill owners, challenging the grant in favour of others under the Act. The Writ Appeals stand referred to a Full Bench since a doubt has been expressed as to whether the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, (1969) 2 Mad LJ 79 : 1970 AIR(Mad) 136) continues to be good law or ceased to be good law, in view of the two decisions relied on by the Division Bench, namely 1971 AIR(SC) 246, 1970 (1) SCC 575, 1970 (3) SCR 846 and 1976 AIR(SC) 578, 1976 (1) SCC 671, 1976 (3) SCR 58 . This doubt has been felt on the simple ground that the Supreme Court has not referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, (1969) 2 Mad LJ 79 : 1970 AIR(Mad) 136) in the above two pronouncements of it.

3. The principles were set down broadly by the Full Bench in Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, (1969) 2 Mad LJ 79 : 1970 AIR(Mad) 136), and it would be sufficient if we extract below the summing of ratio of the Full Bench, as we find in the Headnote of the Reports, which in our view, has been properly done.

"Article 226 of the Constitution confer powers on High Courts in language of the widest amplitude to issue to any person of authority, including in appropriate cases any Government Orders or writs, including writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other purpose. The Article does not in terms, provide as to who can supply for writs or order thereunder.

The broad principles are well established. The interest of the applicant need not be proprietary, but as a claim for certiorari implies a grievance, there must be a grievance - a grievance that the Court would take cognizance of. Having regard particularly to the amplitude of the power of the Court that may be invoked under Article 226, a scrutiny of the locus standi of an applicant for certiorari is clearly necessary to keep off middle interlope