JANATHA TOURING TALKIES Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GHITRADURGA DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even though the petitioners are different, as common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these petitions, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In W.P.No. 7763/1987, the a petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 18-5-1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitradurga in No. ENT.CR. 199/85-86 produced as Annexure-C informing the petitioner that on 25-2-1987 the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the '1987 Rules') have come into force, therefore, the touring cinema licence can be granted only for a period of three months as per sub-rule (9) of Rule 90 of the 1987 Rules. The petitioner has also been further informed that if the petitioner wants to convert the touring cinema into a semi-permanent cinema, he can make an application in Form-AA as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules. The petitioner is further informed that he has filed an application in Form-AA for conversion of his touring cinema into a semi-permanent cinema under sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules, but that rule does not apply to him as it applies only to those who had obtained a licence on 25-2-1987 for a touring cinema, therefore, his application for conversion is rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the licensing authority to consider his application for conversion of his touring N.O.C. into semi-permanent cinema N.O.C. and further to direct the licensing authority to continue the touring cinema licence as per sub-rule (6) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules for a period of one year from 12-3-1987.

(3.) In W.P.NO 12272/1987, the petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement dated 16/29-6-1987 bearing No. MAG(2) TT 128/85- 86 issued by the 1st respondent produced as Annexure-C informing the petitioner that his request for issue of a No Objection Certificate for conversion of his touring cinema into a semi- permanent cinema has been rejected as the application has been filed beyond time.