B N SAMPATH IYENGAR Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE: MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 20-4-1976 passed by 'he 1st 1st respondent - District Magistrate Mysore District, Mysore, in No J(l) CNM. PR 81173-74 granting 'No objection Certificate' in favour of the 2nd respondent for erecting a permanent Cinema Theatre on the site in question bearing No 1979/2 at Bannur Town.

(2.) The petitioner is also having a permanent theatre at Bannur Town. The application filed by the 2nd respondent for grant of no objection certificate was duly notified. The petitioner filed his objections. The objections were also filed by one Sri Haji Hassan Miyan alias Hutcha Miyan of Bannur separately and also a common objection on behalf of the residents of Bannur. The 1st respondent also ascertained the opinion from the different authorities mentioned in Rule 26(1) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) and also inspected the site in question. During the course of the proceeding, the objections filed by Haji Hassan Miyan and also the common objections filed on behalf of the residents of Bannur Town, come to be withdrawn and it was further stated by them that they had no objection for granting 'No objection Certificate' in favour of the 2nd respondent as stated in para 4 of the order of the 1st respondent.

(3.) On receipt of the opinion from the different authorities mentioned in Rule 26(1) of the Rules and on consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner and on inspection of the site the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the site in question was suitable for granting the 'No objection Certificate'. The 1st respondent also considered the suitability of the site from the point of view of its close location to the burial ground and was of the opinion that even though the site is close to the muslim bunal ground, nevertheless, it is suitable for locating a permaent cinema theatre. In this connection, the 1st respondent took into consideration the fact that the petitioner himself is having hiS permanent theatre on the northern side of the burial ground. Further, to safeguard the interest of the muslim community, the first respondent has imposed a condition that the 2nd respondent should construct a wall adjacent to the muslim burial ground and he has also further imposed a condition that the loud-speakers should not be fixed out-side the cinema building.