High CourtsDivision Bench(1953) 05 KL CK 0001

Harihara Iyer Neelacanta Iyer and Others vs Alwaye Municipality and Another

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 May 1953 · Citation: AIR 1953 Ker 298

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Menon, J · G. Kumara Pillai, J
CASE NUMBER
C.M.A. No. 91 of 1953

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 432 words

M.S. Menon, J.—The only question involved in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is whether the distance between the Pankajam Theatre and the Radhakrishna Talkies within the Alwaye Municipality is less than a mile or not. If the distance is a mile or over the Appellants must certainly fail and no other question will arise for consideration.

2.

The distance for the purposes of this case has to be measured not in a straight line on a horizontal plane as provided in Section 10, Travancore-Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 (Act 7 of 1125) but according to the rule reproduced below:

Section (iiA): Restrictions regarding the distance between cinema installations.

1.(1) There shall be a distance of at least

(i) one mile in Municipal areas; and

(ii) two miles in non-Municipal areas, between any two cinema installations:

Provided that this restriction shall not apply in the case of two permanent cinema installations.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules no license shall be issued or renewed in respect, of a cinema installation which does not satisfy the condition laid clown in sub-rule (i).

(3) For purposes of sub-rule (i) the distance between, two cinema installations will be reckoned by the shortest route along public road or public lane connecting the installations.

(Travancore-Cochin Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 30-11-1952, p. 2).

3.

Exhibit IX is a plan prepared by the Municipality which is admitted to be correct by all the parties before us and has been marked with their consent.

4.

It is clear from Ex. IX that there are tour routes and that routes I and IV marked therein exceed a mile in length. Routes II and III are both less than a mile in length but are essentially amphibian in character. It is impossible to consider them as routes along a public road or a public lane which is what is necessary under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1.

5.

The word "road" according to Webster I applies generally to highways, and as a generic term includes highways, streets and lanes.

6.

Any person following route II will have to traverse a stretch of water 350 feet in length (the distance between K and L) and any one following route III will have to traverse a stretch of water 280 feet in length (the distance between N and O), both stretches being parts of the Alwaye river.

7.

It follows that only routes I and IV need be considered and that this civil miscellaneous appeal has to be dismissed.

8.

In the circumstances of the case we shall make no order as to costs.