Locus standi to file writ of certiorari.

The short question for consideration by the Full Bench in this batch of writ appeals is, whether a licensee of an existing rice mill has locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari to quash the grant of a permit for the establishment of a new rice mill in the locality, under the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, XXI of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeals have been preferred from the dismissal of petitions for certiorari on the ground that an existing rice mill owner is not a person aggrieved by the grant of permit to another and has no standing to apply for certiorari. In Kuppuswami Pillai v. The State of Madras1, Kailasam J., observed that the mere fact that a person who has a mill in close proximity to the one to which licence has been granted is likely to suffer financial loss is not sufficient to make him an aggrieved person entitling him to maintain a writ petition challenging an order of the licensing authority granting permit to a new applicant. In taking this decision, the learned Judge considered that the matter was not res integra but governed by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LakshmiAmmal v. Vaithilingam1. Proceeding the learned Judge held that the decision of Rajagopalan, J., in Abdul Mazid v. State of Madras2, taking a contrary view could not, in view of the decision of the Division Bench, be said to be good law. But the contrary view finds confirmation of the observations by another Division Bench in Thiruvengadam v. Muthu Chettiar3.

The Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 is an Act to regulate the rice-milling industry in the interests of the general public. Manifestly, it is a restriction on the carrying on of business of rice-milling. Section 8 of the Act prohibits the establishment of any new rice-mill by any person or authority after the commencement of the Act except under and in accordance with a permit granted under section 5 of the Act. The permit has to be followed by securing a licence under section 6 for carrying on rice-milling operation. There is a prohibition against an owner of rice mill changing the location of the whole or any part of the rice-mill, and against expansion of th rice-mill except with permission. Severe penalties, imprisonment and fine, are provided by section 13 for contravention of provisions of section 8. Section 5(1) requires an application to be made to the Central Government, for the grant of a permit for the establishment of a new rice-mill or for re-commencing rice-milling operation in a defunct rice-mill. Under statutory powers, the Central Government has delegated its function to the State Board of Revenue. Section 5 (4) requires a full and complete investigation to be made in the manner prescribed, before the grant of a permit. The investigation should have due regard to the number of rice-mills operating in the locality, the availability of paddy in the locality, the availability of power and water supply for the rice-mill in respect of which a permit is applied for and the type of the rice-mill-huller type sheller type or combined sheller-huller type. The investigation has also to be directed to ascertain whether the functioning of the rice-mill would cause substantial unemployment in the locality and other matters that may be prescribed. The Rules made under the Act bring out more clearly the object of the Regulation. They emphasise that the investigation shall be made with a view to ascertaining whether the grant of a permit is necessary for ensuring adequate supply of rice. Information has to be gathered as to the pattern of trade and commerce in rice in the locality, the effect that the operation of the new or the defunct rice-mill may have on the local economy, and the necessity or otherwise for an addition to the productive capacity of the existing rice-mills in the locality. The inquiry inter alia must be directed to ascertain whether hand-pounding industry in the locality is already well-organi