Locus standi and statutory interpretation in rice-mill shifting permissions upheld against a rival challenge.

A rival rice-milling trader had no locus standi to challenge permission for shifting the location of an existing rice mill, because the statutory scheme treated such shifting as a licensing condition for an existing unit and commercial harm from increased competition did not create an enforceable legal right. The authority granting permission under section 8(3)(c) was also not bound to apply the considerations in section 5(4), since that provision governed permits for new or defunct mills and was not imported into the separate permission regime by implication. The order permitting the shift was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a competitor in the rice-milling trade had locus standi to challenge permission granted for shifting the location of an existing rice mill. (ii) Whether the authority granting permission under section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 was bound to apply the considerations mentioned in section 5(4) of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether a competitor in the rice-milling trade had locus standi to challenge permission granted for shifting the location of an existing rice mill.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between new or defunct rice mills, for which a permit and licence were required, and existing rice mills, for which a licence was sufficient. Permission to shift the location of an existing rice mill operated as a regulatory condition of the licence. The mere fact that shifting might increase competition or affect a rival's business did not create an enforceable legal right in the rival to prevent the permission from being granted.

Conclusion: The competitor had no locus standi to challenge the grant of permission.

Issue (ii): Whether the authority granting permission under section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 was bound to apply the considerations mentioned in section 5(4) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 5(4) governed the grant of permits for new or defunct rice mills. Section 8(3)(c) dealt separately with prior permission for changing the location of an existing rice mill. The considerations listed in section 5(4) were not imported into section 8(3)(c) by implication, and the authority was required only to exercise the power lawfully and reasonably on the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The authority was not bound to apply section 5(4) considerations while granting permission under section 8(3)(c).

Final Conclusion: The order permitting shifting of the rice mill was upheld, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute separately regulates shifting of an existing business unit, the rival trader's commercial injury does not confer locus standi, and conditions attached to a distinct permit regime cannot be read into the permission regime unless the statute expressly so provides.

---