MARUTHI TOURING TALKIES Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 3 made an application for the grant of a, 'No objection Certificate' for getting a touring cinema licence. The petitioner was one of the objectors who objected to the grant of a ' no objection certificate'. The objection of the petitioner was upheld and the application of the 3rd respondent was rejected by the District Magistrate, Mysore District, Mysore. Against the said order, the 3rd respondent appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, Mysore. The 3rd respondent did not implead the petitioner as one of the respondents in his appeal. The petitioner however, suo motu, made an application for being impleaded as a party in the said appeal. That application of the petitioner was rejected and the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was allowed and a 'no objection certificate' was directed to be given to respondent 3. It is the said order of the learned Divisional Commissioner that is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) The contention of Sri R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the rules do not make any express provision for an objector being heard, in a case like this, where the objections of the objector are upheld by the District Magistrate and a no objection certificate is refused, in an appeal filed against such an order, the objector is entitled to be given an opportunity of submitting his objections to the grant of a 'no objection certificate' before the appellate Authority. For this proposition, reliance ia placed on the decision of this Court in D. S. Krishna Goudo v. State of My sore, (1869) 2 Mys.L.J. 154. Though the said decision was rendered under the old rules, the same principle ia equally applicable to the cases arising under the Mysore Cinemas (Regulation) Act, and the, Rules framed thereunder. In the said case this Court pointed out that where the petitioner was an objector and had taken part in the proceedings before the District Magistrate and got an order in his favour, it is only fair that before the said order could be set aside in appeal, an opportunity should be given to him to submit his objections before the appellate authority though the Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not make specific provision for such notice.

(3.) Following the said decision, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dt. 10-4-1973 is quashed and the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore is directed to dispose of the appeal of the 3rd respondent afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his objections. As this matter is pending for a, long time, the Divisional Commisioner is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. No costs.