NANJAPPA S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the owner of a touring talkies, filed an application before the District Magistrate, Tumkur, for the grant of a no. objection certificate for running a touring talkies in Turuvekere. The District Magistrate called for objections in accordance with Rule 96 (1) and (2) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the 'Rules') . Respondent-3, who had by then secured a licence for establishing a permanent cinema theatre, ag also 'respondents 4 to 9 who are residents of Turuvekere Town in which the petitioner wanted to run his touring talkies, filed their objections (Ext. A) .The District Magistrate issued notices', to the petitioner and also to the objectors fixing the date of hearing on 1-8-1977 ahd the same was adjourned ,to 30-8-1977. on 30-8-1977, the Advocate for respondents 3 to 9 remained absent. The iJ&trict Magistrate proceeded to hear the Counsel for the petitioner and reserved the orders. On 5-9-1977 respondents 3 to 9 made an application before the Dist Magistrate requesting him to hear 'their Advocate before passing final orders. The reason given in the said application was that their Advocate was unable to be present on 30-8-1977 as he had proceeded 'to Shimoga to attend his brother's marriage on that day. The Dist Magistrate did not pass any order on the said application. On 23-9-1977, the Dist Magistrate inspected the spot and thereafter passed the order dated 27-9-1977 granting the no objection certificate asked for by the petitioner (vide Exhibit B) .

(2.) Against the said order, respondents 3 to 9 preferred a revision petition before the State Govt under Sec. 18 of the Karnataka (Cinemas) Regulation Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred "to as 'the Act') . Station 18 empowers the State Govt to call for and examine the records in respect of any original order passed under the provisions of the Act against which no appeal lies under Ses.10 or 17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order, and to pass such order in reference thereto, as it thinks fit. It is not disputed that under Sec. 10 no appeal lies at the instance of an objector to the grant of a no objection certificate. Respondents 3 to .9 being objectors could not, therefore, maintain their appeal before the Divisional Commissioner anjd hence they presented the revision petition under Sec.18. The State Govt gave notice to both parties and after hearing them made the order dated 30-1-1978, allowing the revision partition and setting aside the order of the Disit Magistrate dated 27-9-1977 in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the licenisjng authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondents 3 to 9 to advance their arguments as prayed for by them in their application dated 5-9-1977.

(3.) Aggrievet by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.