AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nainar Sundaram, J.—The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act (XX of 1955)Here in after referred to as the Act, and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. On 6th November 1978. the Respondent granted a an objection certificate to the Petitioner to locate a permanent cinema in T.S. No. 84 of Madurai Town, Madurai South Taluk.
On 5th March 1977, permission was granted by the Respondent to the Petitioner to construct one mini and one main theatre in the same site for which a no objection certificate was granted. After the grant of the no objection certificate and the permission to put up the two theatres in the same site. the Petitioner constructed the theatres at a stated cost of Rs. 30 lakhs, and the other formalities under the Rules for the grant of ''C'' form licences, were processed through and ultimately, the ''C'' form licence for the mini theatre, by name Sakthi Theatre, was granted on 14th June 1978, and the ''C'' form licence for the main theatre, by name Sivam Theatre, was granted on 27th October 1978 Without ambiguity, the proceedings of the Respondent relating to the grant of ''C'' form licences state that the applications satisfy all the requirements of the Rules for the issue of the licences. According to the Petitioner, the two theatres started functioning immediately after the grant of the ''C'' form licences.
While this being so, on 3rd January 1979, the Respondent issued a memorandum pointing out the following three defects:
There is no sufficient parking space for cars and cycles and parking space for 50 more cars and 400 more cycles should be provided near the theatres.
There are only two exits in Sakthi Theatre and more exits should be provided.
More space should be provided for queuing and shelter should also be provided.
The Petitioner replied to this memorandum on 30th January, 1979 pointing out that the aspects relating to the above alleged defects have already been considered by the Respondent even at the time of the grant of the ''C'' form licences; in any event, such defects do not exist and there is no warrant for calling upon the Petitioner to rectify such alleged defects. After the issue of the memorandum, dated 3rd January, 1979 and before the reply of the Petitioner, dated 30th January 1979, the Respondent issued another memorandum on 20th January 1979 pointing out further more defects. The said memorandum runs as follows:
It has been reported (i) that no provision has been made inside the theatre Sakthi Sivam for the formation of queue by means of railings with the result the queues are formed outside the theatre blocking the entries to the neighbouring houses and the residents find it difficult to get in right out of their houses and damages are also reported to be caused to the doors and windows of the neighbouring premises by the unruly numbers of the neatless queues: (ii) the conditions inside the theatre premises themselves are far from satisfactory, There is no sufficient ventilation in the Sivam Theatre and more fans have to be provided in the theatres. The exhaust fans also do not function properly. There is no privacy for those who want to go to urinals or lavatories and ladies are the worst sufferers in this respect. The number of emergency exists is also not adequate posing a serious hazard to the lives in the event of a fire accident.
The proprietor Sakthi Sivam Theatres Madurai is therefore requested to send his explanation for the defects pointed out within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo, after making necessary arrangements to improve the conditions.
0n 3rd February, 1979 the, Petitioner submitted his explanation once again pointed out that no such defects exist and requested the Respondent to stop further proceedings. However, the Respondent issued the impugned memorandum , dated 7th March, 1979 by which he directed the Petitioner to conduct shows only between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and after 8:00 p.m. that is during non-peak hours. The Petitioner challenges this Order of the Respondent in the present writ Petition.
Mr. R.D. Indrasenan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the only consideration that has weighed with the Respondent is that the parking space provided in the theatre is not sufficient and this obliges the people coming to watch films in the theatre to park their cars in the hear by roads and this leads to serious public inconvenience, and the learned Counsel submits that the question of sufficiency of parking space for the cars has already been considered by the Respondent and only on being satisfied with the sufficiency of the provision of space for car parks the Respondents granted the form licences and it is not competent for the Respondent to reopen the matter and vary the conditions of the ''C'' form licence with reference to the timings of the shows in the (SIC) on this ground. The learned Counsel does not question the power of the Respondent to vary the (SIC) and conditions of the ''C'' form licence during the currency of the licence. What the learned Counsel urges is that the question of car park space having already been weighted and adjudicated upon and the sufficiency thereof accepted by the Respondent, it is not permissible forth Respondent to reopen the matter and vary the terms and condition of the ''C'' form licence on that ground. It is not disputed before me that the question of sufficiency of car park space is a mailer that needs consideration by the Respondent even before the grant of the ''C'' form licence and in fact, it has been so considered by aim. The reasoning advanced by the Respondent in the impugned Order for varying the timing of the shows is found expressed in the following passage of the said Order:
Now in the explanation cited above the license arguing that the parking space alleged to be provided in the basement is sufficient. This is (SIC) I have inspected the place personally and have become convinced that the space provided is not at all sufficient. This is further proved by the fact that the cars of the people coming to watch films in this theatre are getting parked on the nearby roads leading to serious public inconvenience. In fact the buses which used to ply on the road in front of the theatre had to be diverted to outer roads on account of this traffic problem and this has also caused serious inconvenience to the travelling public.
Thus, it is clear that the Respondent has put the insufficiency of ear parking space in the theatres as the sole ground and factor for varying the timings of the shows in the theatres. None of the other alleged defects, which were enumerated in the two memorandums referred to earlier, seamed to have been pursued and taken into consideration for the purpose of passing the impugned Order. Hence there is no necessity to advert to them to find out as to whether they are tenable or not.
A Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Ramachk Ndra Iyer O.C.J., and Srinivasan J., in Ramanujam v. T.M. Janakiraman and Ors. (Writ Appeal Nos. 102 and 106 of 1961, judgment dated 8th September, 1961) considered the question as to whether the Collector was competent to have the distance are measured on the occasion of the application for the ''C'' form licence, and the Division Bench held that it was not competent for him to do so. The ratio of the Division Bench is exposed elucidatively in the following observations:
On the question whether the Collector was competent to have the distance remeasured on the occasion of the application for the ''C'' form licence, we are in agreement with the Board that he cannot do so. It is obvious that on the grant of ''No objection'' certificate the applicant becomes entitled to proceed with the construction of his touring cinema in accordance with the approved plan. He spends a considerable amount of money in putting up a structure and so long as he complies with the conditions relevant to the construction of the cinema and produces also the certificate from the Chief Electrical Inspector, he is entitled to the grant of ''C'' form licence. It is the grant of this licence that enables him to commence his shows at the theatre. It is impossible to construe the Rules as enabling any concerned authority to measure the distance-again and again and come to different conclusions on each occasion. When one as ''No objection'' certificate has been granted after proper compliance with the Rule and the applicant has spent considerable amounts in the construction of the cinema, apparently no objection was taken by the Appellant at this stage of the grant of the No objection Certificate to the Respondent, it should no longer be open to the authority to go back upon its decision. The Rules provide for any interested person objecting to the grant of any certificate on the ground that Rule 14(2) has been infringed. In the absence of any such objection the question does not fall to be agitated at the time of the grant of the ''C'' form licence. It would be inequitable to permit parties to spend large amounts in the construction of touring cinemas after obtaining the ''No objection'' Certificate, if they are to be left to the hazard of having such ''No. objection'' certificate cancelled at the instance of another interested party, or even on the initiative of the officers themselves. We are therefore of the view that the Board was right in its conclusion that the Collector was not competent to reopen the question at the stage of the grant of the ''C'' Form licence.
The above dictum of the Division Bench applies with equal force, if not more, to a case where there is an attempt on the part of the licensing authority to re-open matters which got concluded with the grant of the ''C'' form Licence. The question of adequacy of car park space is one to be adverted to and decided before the grant of the ''C'' form licence. The plans submitted after the ''No objection'' certificate are bound to show the position of the theatre premises in relation to adjacent premises and to the public thoroughfare upon which the site of such premises abuts. The licensing authority. Is duty bound before granting the licence to satisfy himself that adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which licence is to be granted to provide for the safety, convenience and comfort of the persons attending exhibitions. These are the mandates of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, It is not the case of Respondent that the plans and the relevant papers submitted by the Petitioner did not provide for car park space and did not disclose such provision, which would be a relevant factor to be considered by the licensing authority before he grants the licence. The Respondent must be deemed to have considered this aspect as enjoined by the provisions, before he actually granted the ''C'' form licences. The ''C'' form licences were in fact granted in June and October, 1973. Within a lapse of a few months, the Respondent has chosen to rake up the question once again. It is not possible to construe the provisions of the Act and the Rules as enabling the licensing. authority to advert to this aspect again and again, after the grant of the ''C'' form licence, and call upon the licensee to rectify any alleged lacuna in this regard. That would be exercise of powers by the licensing authority to vex the licensee and that would border to arbitrariness. The Respondent has not advanced any other reason for disturbing the conditions of the ''C'' form licence. That reasoning advanced by the Respondent is not available to him, because that is a matter Which got settled and approved by the Respondent the licensing authority-himself before the grant of the ''C'' form licences. It is not the case of the Respondent that there was a subsequent change in the local conditions and that too, within the lapse of a few months after the grant of the ''C'' form licences, to necessitate and compel a variation in the timings of the shows in the theatres in question. Such it not the case of the Respondent at all.
In this view, I have to hold that on the specific Masoning advanced by the Respondent, he had no competency to very the timings of the shows as done by the impugned Order. This obliges me interfere in writ proceedings and accordingly the writ Petition is allowed. There will be no Order as to costs.
However, Mr. R.D. Indrasenan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner has no objection to abide by the timings adhered to while the proceedings were pending before the Respondent, as disclosed in the impugned Order.