T VENKOBA RAO Vs. VINOD BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is before the Division Bench by an order of reference dated 15-12-1989 made by the learned Single Judge in view of the preliminary objection raised before him that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was by rival traders.

(2.) The learned Single Judge in his order of reference has stated in detail the cases relied upon by the parties in support of their rival contentions. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because three of the petitioners were rival cinema theatre owners and as such they could not have locus standi to prosecute a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. That contention was supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in (1) The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills & Others v N. Teekappa Gowda & Brothers & Others, AIR 1971 SC 246, (2) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Others, AIR 1976 SC 578 and (3) the decision of this Court in the case of B.N. Sampath lyengar v District Magistrate, Mysore, 1981(1) Karnataka Law Journal 339. However, the learned Single Judge was impressed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.D. Bhojagowda v M/s. Sridhara Krupa Films and Others, rendered in Special Leave Petitions Nos. 4506 and 8257 of 1984 disposed of on 24-4-1984 in which observation had been made having regard to the language of Section 6 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a rival operator who had been given a statutory right to file objections to the grant of a no objection certificate had the right to move the Court under Article 226 ot the Constitution in the event of his objections being overruled by the competent authority under the Act or the Rules thereunder. In that context, the Bench consisting of Hon'blc Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagawati, as he then was and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, the learned present Chief Justice, proceeded to dismiss the special leave petitions subject to the observation. In that circumstance, the learned Single Judge held it was proper for this Court to dispose of the writ petition by a ruling of the Division Bench and as such referred the matter under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

(3.) The facts leading to the writ petition may be briefly stated and they are as follows: Petitioners 1 to 4 are the residents of Siraguppa town of Bellary District in Karnataka State. Petitioners 5 to 7 are owners of theatres in the same town. They felt aggrieved by the grant of a no objection certificate to the first and second respondents for the construction of another theatre in the same town. Despite their objections and in contravention of Rule 27(2) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, it is to be stated, as is borne out by the impugned order as at Annexure-G, the application for grant of a no objection certificate to construct a fourth permanent theatre at Siraguppa was rejected by the second respondent, the District Magistrate, Bellary District, Bellary, the competent authority under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. But on a representation made by respondents-1 and 2, who were applicants before him for the grant of no objection certificate, the Government directed re-consideration of his earlier decision rejecting the application pointing out what the Government thought was the correct interpretation of Rule 27(2) in regard to the meaning and scope of determination of the number of theatres on the basis of the population of a place in a metropolitan area or other places. On receiving such directions as per Government letter No. HD 628 CNA 84, dated 3-12-1984, the matter was once again taken by the third respondent District Magistrate and arguments of the counsel representing the applicants before him as well as the objectors including the petitioners were heard. It may be useful to state at this stage of narration of facts, as submitted from the Bar, that petitioners 1, 4 and 7 have since expressed their desire not to prosecute this petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the remaining petitioners that they have been won-over by the other side. I do not think we should state anything more than this in that regard. The District Magistrate after considering all the arguments advanced before him and having regard to the interpretation suggested by the Government in the aforementioned letter of 3-12-1984, decided to grant the no objection certificate for the construction of a cinema theatre. It is that order which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that there is clear contravention of Rule 27(2) having regard to the population of Siraguppa town.