High CourtsSingle Bench(1970) 12 MAD CK 0007

S. Kalam vs The Secretary to Government Home Department, Madras and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 December 1970 · Citation: AIR 1971 Mad 430 : (1971) 84 LW 166

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramaprasada Rao, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 4075 of 1970

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 346 words

Ramaprasada Rao, J.—On the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy as a member of the public to take such action as is

available to him in law, so as to apprise the licensing authorities under the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1965, not to issue or to renew a

licence for cinematographic exhibition, this petition has to fail.

2.

The petitioner is a dealer in textiles and is having his place adjacent to Roxy Theatre, in Purasawalkam High Road, Madras. According to the

petitioner, people visiting the cinema house assemble in front of his shop in a queue to purchase tickets for entry into the cinema house and this

assemblage is causing a nuisance to the petitioner and his trade. It is on this ground that the petitioner has come up to this court for a writ of

Mandamus directing the licensing authorities to forbear from renewing the licence issued to the respondent. Though this is in the nature of a quia

timet action which is of a continuing nature, yet this court cannot entertain a petition because the licensing authorities are in seisin of the matter and

they are the persons primarily competent to deal with an application for renewal of a licence of a cinema theatre for purposes of exhibition of

cinematographic films. At this stage, this court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus to the licensing authorities, for if such rule is issued, it would be

obviously asking the licensing authorities to follow the law and decide the application for renewal. This, no doubt, would be borne in mind by the

licensing authorities and no direction need be given to them for the purpose.

3.

It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained an injunction in a civil court against the theatre owners from allowing such a congregating to

gather in front of the petitioner''s shop. In these circumstances I am unable to exercise my discretion to issue a writ of Mandamus, which is not the

proper remedy in the instant case.

4.

The writ petition is dismissed.

5.

Petition dismissed.