NAGAR RICE & FLOUR MILLS & ORS. versus N. TEEKAPPA GOWDA & BROS. & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 27-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

846 
NAGAR RICE & FLOUR MILLS & ORS. 
v. 
N. TEEKAPPA GOWDA & BROS. & ORS. 
February 27, 1970 
_ 
[J.C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (21 of 1958)-Shifting 
of existing rice mill to new site-Prior permission under s. 8(3') (c) 
how 
far necessary-Cons.iderations in giving such 
permission--Another mill 
situated near new site objecting that it8 business would be adversely affect-
ed-Objection whether sustainable under Art. 19(1)(g) of Constitution-
Locus standi of party making such ob;ection. 
According to s. 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry 
(Regulation) 
Act, 1958, no owner of a rice mill "shall without the previous permissi~n 
of the Central Government, change the location of the whole or any p_art 
of that rice mill in respect of which licence has been granted under s. 6". 
The lands and buildings of the appellants' rice mill in the State of Mysore 
were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the award ex-
pressly recited that the appellants were entitled to remove the machinery 
of the mill. 
The appellants were allotted a new site by the Mysore Gov-
ernment. After obtaining sanction from the Tehsildar the appellant shift-
ed their machinery to the new site. Thereafter the Director o"f Fo<id and 
Civil Supplies in purported exercise of the delegated powers of the Cell· 
tral Government passed an order under s. 8(3)(c) sanctioning a change 
in the location of the appellants' rice mill. He overruled the objection of 
the respondents whose rice mill was situated near: the new site: The res-
pondents challenged the order before the High Court in a writ petition. 
The High Court having allowed the same the appellant obtained special 
leave and appealed to this Court. The questions that fell for considera-
tion were: (i) whether the shifting df the appellants' rice mill tO the new 
site without prior permission of the Central Government as required by 
s. 8( 3) ( c) of the Act, was legal, and if not whether it affected the respon-
dents' right under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; (ii) whether the 
order under s. 8 ( 3 )( c) was bad for the reason that it did not take into 
consideration the relevant factors such as mentioned in s. 5 ( 4) of the Act. 
HELD: (i) Section 8(3)(c) is merely regulatory: if it was not com-
plied with the appellants may probably be exposed to a penalty, but a 
competitor in the business could not seek to prevent the appe1lants from 
exercising their right to carry on business, because of the default, nor could 
the rice mill o'f the appellants be regarded as a new rice mill. C.ompeti-
tion in the trade or business may be subject to such restrictions as 
are 
permissible and arc imposed by the State, by a law enacted in the interests 
of the general public un.dcr Art. 19(6), but a person cannot claim indepen. 
dently of such r::striction that another person shall not carry on business 
or trade so as to affect his trade or business 
adversely. The appellants 
complied \Vith the statutory requirements for carrying-
on 
rice 
milling 
operations in the building on the new site. 
Even assumir1g that no previ· 
ous pe·rmission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus standi 
for challenging the grant of the pern;ission, because no right vested in the 
respondents was infringed. [851 G-H] 
(ii) The considerations which are prescribed by sub-s. (4) of s. 5 only 
apply to the grant of a permit in respect of a new rice mill or a ilefunet 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NAGAR FLOUR MILLS V. TEEKAPPA (Shah, /.) 
847 
rice mill. They have no application in considering the shifting the loca-
tion of an existing ·rice mill. In respect of a new or defunct mill a permit 
and a Jicence are both required ; in respect of an existing rice mill only a 
licence is required. The conditions prescribed by sub-s. (4) of s. 5 only 
apply to the grant of a permit and not a licence. Bys. 8(3) (c) it is made 
one of the conditions of the 1icence that the location of the rice m.ill shall 
not be shifted without the previous 
permission of the Central Govern-
ment. It is true that the appropriate authority clothed with the power 
must consider the expediency of permitting a change of location. 
But 
there is no statutory obligation imposed upon him to take into considera-
tion the matters prescribed by sub~s. ( 4) of s. 5 in granting the permis~ 
sio_n to change the location. [852 E-G] 
On the facts 
o'f the present 
case th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.