P. Durairaju vs The Board of Revenue, (Commissioner of Land Revenue and Transport), Madras and others

Ramanujam, J.—The petitioner applied for a No objection certificate for locating a touring cinema in Kilpallipattu village, North Arcot Dt.

The Collector of North Arcot, the licensing authority, refused to grant the No objection certificate for various grounds. One of the grounds on

which the said refusal was based is that there is already at touring cinema in the village, that there are other touring cinemas nearby, and that,

therefore, there is no warrant for locating another touring cinema in that place. When the order of rejection passed by the Collector was challenged

before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue also agreed with the Collector and held that the village being a small one, the existing touring

cinema is sufficient. Thus, though the Board of Revenue disagreed with the Collector in respect of other matters it upheld the order of the Collector

on the question of adequacy. In this view, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

In this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue, that the

village cannot accommodate more than one touring cinema is contrary to R.14 (1) of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, which directs the

licensing authority to take into account the population only while considering the grant of No objection certificate for a permanent cinema and even

that only in towns. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel, that under R. 14, the population of a particular place cannot be an exclusive

matter to be taken note of at the time of grant of No Objection Certificate for a touring cinema. S. 5 (1) (d) of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation)

Act, 1955, however, directs the licensing authority to take account the adequacy of the existing places for exhibition of cinematograph films in the

locality. From this it is clear that the third respondent (licensing authority in this cape) has to necessarily consider the question of adequacy at the

time of the grant of the No objection Certificate. In this case, both the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue have found that the existing

touring cinema in the village as well as the other touring cinemas in and around the locality are adequate and the touring cinema proposed by the

petitioner cannot, therefore, be allowed. The question of adequacy is admittedly one of fact depending upon the situation of the village, the

population in and around the locality, etc. Respondents 1 and 3, having decided that question and found that the existing places for exhibition of

cinematograph films in the locality are adequate, this court cannot go behind that finding of fact. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is

dismissed.