T M SRIRAMULU NAIDU Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF REFERENCE TO DIVISION BENCH Dated 15th April 1975 1.Held: The primary contention arising for consideration is whether the District Magistrate while considering the application for regrant of licence under Rule 105 could take into consideration any of the representation from the public touching upon the matters which are relevant for granting ' No Objection Certificate...the decision of Chandrasekhar, J., in SRI LAKSHMI TOURING TALKIES (A.I.R. 1975 Karnataka 37 - 1975 (1) K.L.J. 419), proceeds on the basis that the District Magistrate at the time of regrant is required to consider only the matters relevant for the regrant of licence,...that when once a 'No Objection certificate has been granted, the question whether the requirements of Rule 107 have been satisfied or not cannot be gone into at the time of regrant of licence ....But, the observation of Malimath J. in Madanaik's case gave an indication that it is open to the District Magistrate to take into consideration any of the representations relating to the matters which he ought to take into consideration at the time of granting 'No Objection Certificate. (REFERRED TO DIVISION BENCH) Order of Reference by Division Bench. Dated : 13th August 1975

(2.) APART from conflicting rulings of this Court, an important question of public interest arises, in our opinion, for determination in this Petition, and we consider it fit to refer that question to a Full Bench. That question is : 'If the Licensing Authority had granted a No Objection Certificate for running a touring cinema in a particular site and had also subsequently granted a licence to run that touring cinema, can the Licensing Authority, while considering an application for re -grant of that licence after the expiry of the period of original licence, re -examine the question whether the location of that touring cinema in that site satisfies the requirements of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971'? OPINION OF THE FULL BENCH Dated 1st September 1978 per Jagannatha Shetty, (Venkatachaliah, J. concurring) From the provisions of the Act, the legislative purpose is clearly intelligible, that was, to regulate the cinematographic exhibitions at suitable places in different localities having regard to the interest of the public generally, and the benefit to any particular locality or localities to be afforded thereon. Rules 105, 99 and 98 (2) are dovetailed with each other and the combined effects of these rules are as follows : A licence to a touring cinema may be granted for a period less than one year. If the licensce stops exhibition for one month immediately after one year continuous period, his licence may be granted or regranted for a further period subject to the other conditions being satisfied, but that further period also should not exceed one year at a time.

(3.) THE regrant contemplated by Rule 98(2) is only in continuation of the grant and not an independent regrant and further as the rule is concerned with the location of the site the word 'regrant' in this rule also means a grant made under sub -rule (1) to a different person in continuation of the earlier grant as regrant under this sub -rule has reference to the site ... According to Rule 99, the maximum period of life of a touring cinema licence either by an initial grant or by an initial grant for any shorter period and regrant or regrants for any period or periods, as the case may be, is one year. In other words, regrant contemplated under Rule 99 is not an independent regrant like a regrant of licence to a permanent cinema.