AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Veeraswami, C.J.—These cases come up before us on reference by ismail J. because the validity of Rule 79-A (3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957, has been challenged. The third Respondent applied for a no-objection certificate to locate a semi-permanent cinema in S. No. 217 part of Singammalpuram in Srivilliputhur town and this was granted to him. The Petitioner having unsuccessfully opposed the grant, seeks to have the order of the Board of Revenue quashed, on the main ground that Rule 79-A (3), (a), we mentioned is void for its uncertainty. The rule as it stood be before amendment, read:
Semi-permanent cinemas shall be permitted only in urban areas having a total Population of less than one lakh and also not having more than three permanent cinemas already functioning in such urban areas.
On June 3, 1970 the rule was amended substituting the words only in urban by the words in area and also substituting the words such urban areas by the word locality. Prima facie the word area may appear to be vague and uncertain, in the absence of a definition delimiting an area or areas. But, in the context of the rules and the provisions of the Act, we are of opinion that area in the rule means the limits of a Panchayat or a revenue village or a township of town or a city. Section 5 of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 itself uses the expression locality in Clause (d) and the words locality or localities in Clause (e). Rule 3 (g) speaks of Local Authority which means in the City of Madras the Council of the Municipal Corporation of Madras and in an area in District, the Municipal Council or the Township Commitee or the Panchayat having jurisdiction over the area. The proviso also uses the word area with reference to the Panchayat Union Council having jurisdiction, where there is no Panchayat functioning. It seems to us, therefore, that, when the word area is used in Rule 79-A (3) (a), in the context it means, as we already mentioned, a revenue village, township, town or city. The whole purpose of the rule, as we think, is to forbid semi permanent cinemas, in areas, in the sense we have understood the expression, having a total population of more than one lakh. In order to quality for the establishment of a semi-permanent cinema, the area should have a population less than one lakh and should not have more than three permanent cinemas functioning. In our opinion, therefore, there is no uncertainty or vagueness about the use of the word areas in the place of the words only in urban area in the old rule, and no question of invalidity of the amended rule can arise.
It is then contended for the Petitioners that, accepting the interpretation of the word area in the rule as mentioned above, the rule has been misapplied, in as much as the authorities below have not only taken into account the population of the municipal town of Srivilliputhur, namely, about 54,000, but also the population in the neighbouring villages who may be expected to resort to cinemas. In our view, the contention has no merit. Two things should be kept apart. One is that Rule 79-A (3) (a) has nothing to do with the adequacy contemplated by Section 5(1). The second is that Rule 79 A (3) (a) enjoins that a semi- permanent cinemas shall be permitted only if certain conditions are satisfied, namely, (i) that the total population in the areas should be less than one lakh and (ii) that there should not be more than three permanent cinemas already functioning in the area. If in applying this rule the authorities below had taken into account not only the population in the municipal town of Srivilliputhur but also the population in the surrounding village who resort to cinemas and on that basis calculated the population as exceeding one lakh and refused permission to establish a semi-permanent cinema, it would have been in contravention of the rule. But that is not the case. The town does have a population not less than one lakh and does not have more than three permanent cinemas. The rule is, therefore, satisfied. Even so, the authorities have still to say whether Section 5 (1) is satisfied as to adequacy and that is what the authorities below had in mind, when one or other of them made reference to the mills serving the town and also the people in the surrounding villages.
Our attention was invited to Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, But that case was decided in respect of the provisions not identical to those of the Act and the rules we are concerned with and in the light of different facts.
The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.