P.K.S. Mani Iyer, Managing Partner, Sri Shanmukham Talkies vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Shanmukham, J.—The petitioner is conducting cinematographic exhibition in Gandharvakottai in Pudukottai Dt. He objected to the issuance

of ''No Objection certificate'' to respondents 4 and 5 for locating a touring cinema in Survey No. 2/1 of Akkachupatti village, the third respondent,

the licensing authority, overruled all the objections put forward by the petitioner and granted No Objection Certificate to respondents 4 and 5.

Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent set aside the order of the

Collector and remanded the matter to the Collect Order The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, preferred a revision petition to the

Government. The said revision petition, is still pending consideration, by the Government but then the Government dismissed the petitioner''s

application for stay of, the order passed by the appellate authority, pending his revision. It is the refusal on the part of the Government to grant stay

that is challenged in this writ proceeding.

The learned, Counsel for the petitioner would submit in the forefront that if stay is not granted the very revision petition itself would become

infructuous. In this context, the Learned Counsel referred to Section 9(A)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Act and also to an

unreported decision of Palaniswami, J., in S. Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Dt. Revenue Officer, South Arcot, Cuddalore and Anr. W.P. 1702 of

1969. Section 9(B)(1) confers power on the Government to entertain a revision and to pass such orders as it thinks fit. Section 9(B)(3) enables the

Government; to stay the execution of the decision or order pending the exercise of their power under Sub-section (1) of Section 9(B) of the Act. It

is needless to state that the said power is a discretionary one, of course, to be exercised judiciously. In this case, the Government felt that there

was no need to grant interim stay.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on the fact that the reasoning of the Government in rejecting the stay application of the

petitioner is rather erroneous. According to the Learned Counsel, the Government was under the impression that the appeal is still pending on the

file of the Appellate Authority but, when once the matter is remitted to the licensing authority, the same cannot be pending on the file of the

Appellate Authority and therefore, the reasoning is bad. I am unable to agree with such an interpretation put forward by the Learned Counsel. The

order has to be read as a whole. No doubt, the expression ''has not passed final orders in your appeal, may not be proper. But immediately after

the same, the Government has pointed out that the Appellate Authority has remanded the case back to the Collector for proper examination and

fresh disposal. Therefore, what the Government meant when it said ''has not passed final orders on your appeal'' is that the rights of the parties

have not been finally settled by the Appellate Authority because the matter was only remanded to the Collector for proper examination and fresh

disposal of the same.

As regards the unreported decision of Palaniswami, J., that was a case where pending disposal of the appeal by the Government against the

suspension of licence for running the rice mill, the Government -refused to grant stay. The learned Judge pointed out that if the suspension of the

licence was not stayed, the owner of the rice mill would have to stop running the rice mill. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the Government

ought to have exercised the discretion in favour of the appellant rice mill owner. The facts in this case, however, are entirely different. Here only a

No Objection certificate has been issued by the Collector and on appeal the matter has been remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration

and the matter is now pending before the Collect Order

I must add that in such cases this Court shall not exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly, when the rights of the

parties are not finally settled. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.