Writ of Certiorari applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial orders; administrative decisions under the Rice Milling Act do not require objection hearings.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, or order to quash the order made by the second respondent, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms. No.1403 dated 12/07/1961. The facts leading upto the filing of this petition are briefly these:

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a hullei - cum - sheller rice mill in Chennur Village, Bit - II, Gudur Taluk, Nellore District. The 1st respondent, Amara Venkata Narasimhulu Chetti, applied for and obtained a permit from the Government on 27/03/1960 for running a huller rice mill at Chennur. The petitioner objected to the grant of the permit to the 1st respondent, and when he knew that permit was actually granted he filed on 25/04/1960 a petition before the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to cancel the permit and stay further proceeding's. The petition was taken on file by the Minister, and the Collector was directed not to issue the licence. But by the time the stay orders were received by the Collector a licence No.231 dated 22/04/1960 - valid upto 31/03/1961 was given to the 1st respondent. But the Collector intimated to the Government that he was asking the licensee not to work the mill.
The 1st respondent thereupon filed a petition before the Minister on 11/05/1960 pleading inter alia that the allegations made against film by Sri Venugopal Reddi, were incorrect and mala fide and requesting that the Collector may be asked to cancel the orders directing him (respondent No.1) not to work the mill, and to grant him a renewal of the licence. Similar application was - also made to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Government after perusing the relevant reports passed an order on 04/04/1961 to the effect that they saw no reason to interfere with the orders already passed granting the 1st respondent a permit, and the Collector was directed to renew the licence in favour of the 1st respondent for the year 1961-62 after following the prescribed procedure.

3. The 1st respondent filed an application before the Collector requesting for permission to convert the huller mill with 20 HP motor into a sheller - cum - huller mill with 30 HP. The Tahsildar, who was asked to enquire reported in favour of the 1st respondent. The Collector took a contrary view. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies by an order dated 02/02/1961 held that the paddy production in the locality did not justily the establishment of a new mill and that, therefore, the application of Sri A.V. Narasimhulu Chetti should be rejected. The 1st respondent thereupon filed a petition before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies staling that the Order passed by the Commissioner on 02/02/1961, was due to a complete misapprehension and that he was not asking for the installation of a rice mill afresh, but the conversion of a huller mill into a huller - cum - sheller with an electric motor of 30 HP. On that petition the Commissioner of Civil Supplies passed the following order:
"The petitioner is informed that he may approach the Government if so advised in the matter".
Accordingly, the 1st respondent filed a petition before the Government on 15/03/1961 explaining the circumstances of the case and praying that the order of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies dated 02/02/1961 may be set aside and permission tor the conversion asked for by him may be granted. The Government then passed the following order on 12/07/1961:
"The orders issued by the Board of Revenue (C.S.) in its reference first read above are set aside.
Under S.8(3)(d) of the Rice M