SHANKARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the prayers made in all these three petitions are the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners were applicants before the Dist Magistrate, respondent 2 in each of these cases, for the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' to construct a perraanent cinema building. Their applications were refused on the ground that the sites in respert of which 'No Objection Certificate' were sought were situate within 400 mis from an existing permanent cinema building, and therefore, the certificates praved for could not be given. In rejecting the applications made by the petitioners, the authorities concerned relied upon Rule 27 (2) (h) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 as amended by the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (first Amendment) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The relevant part of Rule 27 reads as follows :

(3.) Clause (b) of Rule 27(2) extracted above was promulgated on 16-4-1974 and published in the Karnataka Gazette dt.25-4-1974. Three contentions are urged by Sriyuths A.Ananda Shetty, B.G.Sridharan and T.Narendra Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of the petitions: (1) The Rule 27(2) (b) is unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. (2) The Government had no competence to make it; and (3) It does not serve the purpose of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . The question whether the Rule is liable to be declared as unconstitutional on the ground that it contravenes Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constn cannot be gone into in these cases. The impugned Rule was enacted, as already mentioned earlier, in the year 1974 during the continuance of the state of emergency declared by the President on 3-12-1971. While a proclamation of emergency is in operation nothing in Art. 19 shall restrict the power of the State as defined in Part III of the Constn to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would but for the provisions contained in that part be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall to the extent of the incompetency, case to have effect as soon as the proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceas.es to have effect (vide Art.358 of the Constn).