K.M. LAKSHMANAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF NORTH ARCOT DISTRICT (THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, K.M. Lakshmanan, obtained a lease for a period of four years from 12th October, 1960 of a rice mill belonging to the predecessor -in -title of the 2nd respondent Sanjeevi Mudaliar. Previously there was a licence to run that rice mill in the name of the predecessor of the and respondent. Consequent upon this lease the petitioner obtained a licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, . 1958 for running the rice mill from 17th July, 1962. The petitioner however continued to have the licence for a period ending 31st March 1965, after renewal. In the meantime consequent on the fact that the lease in favour of the petitioner from the brother of the 2nd respondent had expired on nth October, 1964 disputes arose between the and respondent and the petitioner about the recovery of possession of the rice mill. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction and the suit was dismissed on 31st August, 1965 for default. In the mean time accepting the representation of the and respondent that the petitioner was not entitled to continue to run the rice mill as the lease had expired on 11th October, 1964, the Collector of North Arcot, the licensing authority, suspended the licence granted to the petitioner with effect from 9th February, 1965. The petitioner appealed against the order to the Board of Revenue. In the meantime the petitioner applied to the 1st respondent (the Collector of North Arcot) relying on Section 8(3)(c) of the Act for the shifting of the machinery of the rice mill in respect of which renewal of the licence was granted to him upto 31st March, 1965, to some other building which he had built for housing a rice mill. This application was rejected by the Collector by an order passed on 22nd December, 1964 stating that the application purporting to be under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act for shifting the machinery from the present rented building was really for an altogether new rice mill to be run in the village. In view of that fact the petitioner was required to apply for a fresh permit under Section 5 of the Act. The petitioner had filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to exercise his proper jurisdiction under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner's principal contention is that the Authority, namely, the 1st respondent (Collector of North Arcot) ought to have granted the prayer for shifting the machinery under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act. Section 8(3)(c) of the Act reads thus: