SIDDAMMA MALLAPPA MANGULI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 22208/2002 has challenged in this Writ Petition the notification dated 29. 4. 2002 as per Annexure E under Section 20 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1961. The third respondent in the above Writ Petition who is the petitioner in W. P. No. 26806/2002 has challenged in the said Writ Petition the order dated 5. 7. 2001 as per Annexure J. As the facts giving rise to these Writ Petitions are one and the same and between the same parties, these Writ Petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 22208/2002 is a resident of Sindagi Town in Bijapur District. She is also an existing operator of cinemas in the said town. The third respondent, Sri Sharanappa Thippanna Sunagar, is a sitting MLA from Sindagi Legislative Assembly Constituency and represents the ruling Congress. He made an application to the licensing authority, the second respondent-District Magistrate, under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter called as the Act) for the grant of a NOC for enabling him to operate a permanent cinema theatre in Sindagi town. The second respondent invited objections from the general public. The petitioner filed her objections contending that the population of the town did not permit any additional theatre being sanctioned to the town, three cinema theatres existing is more than sufficient to cater to the needs of the public and therefore contended sanctioning of one more theatre would not be in the public interest and it would be contrary to law. The licensing authority upholding the said objections rejected the application of the third respondent as per Annexure-A dated 5. 7. 2001which is the subject matter of W. P. No. 26806/2002. The case of the petitioner is third respondent without challenging the aforesaid order exerting political influence on the higher ups in the government approached the fourth respondent and got addressed a letter to the District Magistrate as per Annexure-C dated 3. 12. 2001 to the effect that the government has decided to grant no objection certificate and therefore he directed the second respondent-District Magistrate to issue a no objection certificate. On coming to know of such a direction as per Annexure-C, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W. P. No. 46372/2001 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court rejected the said Writ Petition by his order dated 12. 4. 2002 holding it is premature. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal in W. A. No. 3012/2002. The third respondent had entered caveat and other respondents were represented by the government advocate. When the said appeal was adjourned from 26. 4. 2002 to 3. 5. 2002 for further consideration, acting in post-haste the third respondent got the impugned notification dated 29. 4. 2002 issued under Section 20 of the Act exempting the Sindagi town from the provisions of Rule 27 (2) (a) (ii) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (for short called the Rules) as per Annexure-E. On coming to know of such notification, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging the same. When the Writ Appeal came up for consideration on 4. 6. 2002 after hearing both the parties the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 46372/2001 and also quashed the communication dated 3. 12. 2001, leaving it open to the parties to pursue the present Writ Petition and also reserving the liberty to the third respondent to challenge the order dated 5. 7. 2001. That is how after the disposal of the said Writ Appeal, the third respondent has challenged the order dated 5. 7. 2001 by preferring W. P. No. 26806/2002.

(3.) PETITIONER contends the impugned notification in the Writ Petition is void as no written order was passed under Section 20 of the Act in public interest exempting Sindagi town from the provisions of Rule 27 (2) (a) (ii) of the Rules. The said notification is not in public interest and there is no application of mind before passing the same.