RAMACHANDRAPPA Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE BLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of a permanent cinema theatre in Kanakapura Town. Respondent-2 made an application for a licence for erection of a touring cinema theatre in the same town. The appellant objected to the issue of licence before the District Magistrate, Bangalore. Overruling the objections, the District Magistrate granted a 'no objection' certificate. That was challenged by the appellant in WP.4066 of 1976, which was rejected at the preliminary hearing stage by Malimath, J. Against the said order this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Two grounds have been pressed before us by Shri E.G. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary hearing. The first ground is that as a first step before granting a 'no objection' certificate, the licensing authority should have decided the question of adequacy of the existing places of exhibition of cinematographic films in the locality as provided under S.6 of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1964, and not in the final order. In support of that contention, the learned counsel sought support from the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Oblaswami Naidu v. Addk State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others, AIR 1969 SC. 1130. where, dealing with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was laid down that the need for granting a stage-carriage permit should be decided as a preliminary step before the actual grant of a permit.

(3.) Though the argument of the learned counsel appears attractive, in our Opinion, the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act is entirely different from the scheme of the Cinema (Regulation) Act. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority decides the question of the need for fresh grant of stage-carriage permits and by public notice calls for applications. There is no such provision under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act. The matters required to be considered by the licensing authority under S. 6 of this Act have to be and may be considered at one stage, viz., while granting or refusing 'no objection' certificate. Therefore, the first ground fails. The second ground urged is that the shortest distance between the appellant's theatre and the proposed site of the second respondent, is less than 1.6 kilometres and, therefore, Rule 107(1) (a) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1974, is violated.