AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan, J.—The Petitioner applied to the Collector on 20-2-1976 for the grant of a no objection certificate to construct a permanent air-
conditioned theatre in T.S No. 397/1 ( Part ) of Block No. 49. Ward No. 24 of Tirnchirapalli Municipality. Notices inviting objections were duly
published at the Collectorate and at the Thirchirapali Municipal office on 25-2-1978 and 1-3-1978 respectively. The Commercial tax Officer
Tiruchinapalli ( Rural) and ( Town) and the superintendent of Police. Tiruchirapalli did not raise any objection to the proposed grant. However the
Tiruchirapalli Municipality raised objection on the ground that the proposed site had been reserved for residential purposes in the Town Planning
records and that there were important institutions such as champion High school etc., and Municipal Offices were situated nearby. The Principal of
Champion High School and the Hospital administrator of Child Jesus Hospital field their objections in June 1978 and July, 1978. On a
consideration of these objections, the Collector held by his order dated 11-12-1978 that the objections of the Principal and correspondent.
Champion High School, Tiruchirapalli, carried weight and it was objectionable to locate a permanent theater in the vicinity of the school and
therefore rejected the request of the petitioner for the objection certificate. Aggrieved by this rejection order the matter was taken . Before the
appellate authority, the same objections were filed. This argument was rejected the licensing authority to consider interest, even though the
objections were related. On this finding B.P. Rt. 1524 (L) dated 14-3-1979 the appeal was rejected It is against these successive orders of
rejection, the present write petition has been preformed.
The first and the foremost contention of Mr. Muthukumaaswami learned counsel for the petitioner is that in so far as rules 35 and 35 A of the
Tamil Nadu Cinemas Rules1957 lay down the for the receipt of objections and admittedly the objections field either by the Municipality or by the
third respondent school were beyond the period prescribed within the meaning of law and consequently the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside. It is further contended that bearing those provisions relating to the receipt of objection, there that finding of the board of revenue is clearly
illegal. As against this Mr. Chinnaswamy, appearing for the Municipality would submit that in so far as the Municipality has raised specific
objections that the location of the theatre would not be conductive to the interest of the public having regard to the reservation of site under the
Town Planning scheme and as the collector had made a personal inspection of the site and if he had found the site objectionable, there will be no
difficulty in unholding the order. Mr. Stanisias learned counsel appearing for the their respondent, and the other respondent also support it is well
open to the collector to consider the objections after all the matter is brought to the knowledge of the licensing authority one was or the other.
On a careful consideration of the above arguments, I am of the view that the stand of the respondents cannot be held to be tenable at all. Rules
35 and 35-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules 1957, lay down the procedure for submission of objections. Under Rule 35 (2), 45
days time is given for the local authority to forward its objections to the licensing authority. It is now admitted on all side''s that the objections of the
Municipality were never forwarded within 45 days limit. Be that so. Turning to Rule 35 (3), the police authority viz., the Superintendent of Police
did not raise any objection within 30 days prescribed under the said sub-rule. As regards the public it is Rule 35A which should govern. hat rule
reads as follows-
On receipt of the application, the licensing authority shall cause a notice to be published to the notice board of the office of the licensing authority
and the Panchayat Union concerned, of the fact of receipt of the application. with such details as may be considered necessary and calling for
objections, if any, from the public in regard to the non-compliance by the applicant of the provisions of any of these rules. All objections shall be
filed in writing before the licensing authority within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. Any objection filed after this period, shall be
liable to be summarily rejected.
Therefore, the objections of the other respondents like the third respondent school or the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent should have
been submitted within 15 days from the date of the application of the petitioner. In so far as the application of the petitioner was notified at the
Collect orate on 25-2-1978 and at the Municipal Office on 1-3-1978, the last date for submission of the application within the scope of the above
rule will be 15-3-1978. In the instant case, admittedly, the third respondent sent his objectors only in June, 1978. Likewise, the respondents 4 and
5 sent their objections only in July, 1978. Under these circumstances, they also were belated and that the resultant position is the objections of the
Municipality within the meaning of Rule 35 (2) were belated. Likewise, the objections of respondents 3, 4 and 5 within the meaning of Rule 35-A.
If that be the resultant position, can they be considered to be valid objections in law? I am afraid they cannot be considered to be valid objections
in law. This is because where law lays down a procedure, that procedure will have to be followed. It should be remembered ''in this connection
that the licensing authority is entrusted with'' power subject to the provisions of the statute and the rules made thereunder. He has no inherent
power. As a matter of fact, I have myself taken the view that belated objections cannot be considered to be valid objections in W. P. No. 138 of
1978. The ratio of that ruling will squarely apply.
The next question that has to be considered is whether the licensing authority, having regard to the scope of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu
Chimeras (Regulation) Act 1955, can consider these matters u/s 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act states that the licensing authority shall have
regard to the following matters, namely, (a) the interest of the public generally; (b) the status, antecedents and previous experience of the applicant,
(c) the suitability of the place where the cinematograph exhibitions are proposed to be given; (d) the adequacy of existing places for the exhibition
of films in the locality; (e) the benefit to any particular locality or localities to be afforded by the opening of a new place of exhibition and (f) the
possession by the applicant, of other places, if any, licensed under this Act. whether in the same locality or elsewhere, and whether at the time of
applying for the license or at any previous time. It is not possible to contend that by reason of the personal inspection the Collector gains certain
knowledge and, therefore, that knowledge could be utilised. For two reasons, this submission will have to be rejected, because neither the order of
the Collector nor Of the Board puts it on the ground. Then again a question may arise whether the knowledge gained on personal inspection could
be utilised for a judicial disposal of the matter and in such a case whether it would not be tainted with an element of bias. But I do not think I need
consider all these, because, as I observed above, the Collector merely upholds the objection of the third respondent and that order is confirmed by
the Board stating that even though the objections of the third respondent were belated, vet in public interest the licensing authority could consider.
This is not the correct way of approaching the matter. Section 5 of the Act merely says shall have regard, but that does not mean he can travel
outside the ambit ''of the section or the rules and consider some objections which objections, I have already held, to be not valid in law. Having
regard to the above, I hereby quash the impugned orders of the Collector and the Board of Revenue and the matter is remitted for fresh disposal
to the Collector, Tiruchirapalli, to consider the application of the petitioner on merits. The writ petition is allowed and remitted. No costs.
I make it clear that inasmuch as I have already held that the objections are invalid, the application of the petitioner for the grant of a ''no
objection certificate on merits objections will have to be considered on merits without reference to these objections.
Petition allowed.