AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ismail, J.—Admittedly, the petitioner who was granted a ''No Objection Certificate'' for constructing a permanent cinema on 18th October
1971, has not completed the construction of the building. The third respondent herein applied for grant of a ''No objection certificate'' for putting
up the construction of a touring cinema on 10th February 1973, which is a alleged to be within a distance of one mile from the site of the petitioner
herein. The question for consideration is whether the distance rule contemplated by R.14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Rules will apply to
such a case. The Board of Revenue has held that the distance rule will apply only with reference to a functioning of a running cinema and not with
reference to a site selected for construction of a cinema. I am of the view that this conclusion of the Board of Revenue is correct. As a matter of
fact, R.14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Rule itself prescribes that a touring cinema in any place shall not be allowed within distance of
1.609 km. of the nearest permanent cinema located in the same local area or in the adjacent village, panchayat or town or in the City of Madras.
Apart from the use of the expression, ''Permanent cinemas'' even from the commonsense point of view, that should be the real purport of the rule.
The petitioner herein who was granted the ''No objection certificate'' for putting up a permanent cinema on 18th October 1971, has not yet
completed the construction, notwithstanding the passage of nearly 2� years. It may be that the petitioner is not able to complete the construction
for another year or more. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no justification whatever for a person like the petitioner who has not yet
commenced exhibiting cinema to prevent somebody else exhibiting his cinema in a building put up by him. Hence, the order of the Board of
Revenue does not call for any interference. The writ petition is dismissed.