K E APPUKUTTY Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER MADAI PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An exhibitor of cinematographic films who is having his theatre within the Madai Panchayat has filed this Original Petition wherein he prays for quashing the permission granted to the fourth respondent to construct a temporary cinema theatre in R. S. 78/1 of Pudiyangadi desom, within the Madai Panchayat and also for quashing the licence granted to the 4th respondent on 30-10-1974 with the further prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the first respondent not to grant or renew licence to the 4th respondent for his temporary cinema theatre and also for an injunction directing the fourth respondent not to exhibit cinema shows in the "Star Talkies" Pudiyangadi desom, Madai Panchayat and also for directing the first respondent not to renew licence granted to the 4th respondent to exhibit cinema shows in the said theatre till final disposal of the Original Petition.

(2.) The 4th respondent appears to have filed an application for permission to construct a temporary cinema shed in R. S. No. 78/1 of Pudiyangadi desom in Madai Panchayat. It would appear that permission was granted for the construction of a temporary cinema shed on 15-4-1974. The petitioner who is running a cinema theatre in the same Panchayat area filed an appeal before the Panchayat, questioning the permission granted to the 4th respondent to construct the temporary cinema shed. In a cryptic order contained in a resolution which is produced as Ext. P-2 in the case that appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Executive Officer has not granted any licence to the 4th respondent for conduct of the cinema. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the matter. In the first paragraph of Exhibit P-1 itself it is stated that despite very serious objections filed regarding the suitability of the site concerned for exhibition of cinema shows the Executive Officer (has granted permission for the construction of a shed for the exhibition of cinema shows which decision was impugned in the appeal. The prayer in the appeal itself is that the permission granted to the 4th respondent to construct a building in the site proposed by him may be quashed. By Ext. P-4 the petitioner filed a revision in the matter to the Collector of Cannanore who is the third respondent in the Original Petition.

(3.) Along with the revision application the petitioner applied for a stay of granting licence for conducting cinematographic shows to the 4th respondent till the disposal of the revision petition. It is alleged that no order was passed on the stay application. A Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court as O. P. No. 4476 of 1974 wherein he prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the permission granted by the Executive Officer and for a writ of mandamus directing the Executive Officer not to grant licence to the 4th respondent under the Kerala Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1958 as well as under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963, or in the alternative to direct the 3rd respondent in the said O. P. the District Collector to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, pending before him. Along with that Writ Petition the petitioner moved for stay of the permission granted to the 4th respondent. This Court was not inclined to grant a stay since an Advocate appeared for the first respondent in the O. P. and opposed the application. The Original Petition was posted for hearing on 23-10-1974 and the court directed the parties concerned to file counter. Since ho counter was filed on 23-10-1974 and since the petitioner again moved with an application praying that the application for interim stay be taken up for urgent orders, Justice Khalid ordered interim stay as prayed for on 1-11-1974. As per order dated 5th November, 1974 in C. M. P. No. 14765 of 1974 this court restrained the 4th respondent from exhibiting cinema shows in the theatre constructed by him till 8-11-1974. This Court finally disposed of the Writ Petition thinking that it is not proper or necessary to go into the contentions of the parties in detail since the revision petition was pending before the District Collector. The court gave a direction to the District Collector to dispose of the revision petition pending before him on or be-tore 15-l1-1974 untrammelled by any observations of the court in the order regarding the case and till such disposal the 4th respondent was not to exhibit cinema shows in the temporary shed constructed by him.