M L KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, 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, AIR 1971 SC 246 a case which arose under the Act. This view of the Supreme Court was reiterated by it in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578, 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 LJ 79, 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 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 continues to be good law or ceased to be good law, in view of the two decisions relied on by the Division Bench, namely AIR 1971 SC 246 and AIR 1976 SC 578. 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 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, 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.