MOHMED MUSA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals arise under The Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Bombay Cinema Rules 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The respondents 9 and 10 in Special Civil Application No. 5325 of 1987 have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1993 and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 343 of 1991 has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 133 of 1993. The petitioners in the Special Civil Applications shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners for the sake of convenience in this order of ours. We shall refer to the respondents as per their array in Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1993.

(2.) The father of the 3rd respondent obtained from 2nd respondent a no objection certificate under the Rules even as early as on 7.12.1971. On 19.4 the father of the 3rd respondent obtained the requisite permission to construct the cinema house. Despite extensions being granted the construction could not be completed and the father of the 3rd respondent expired on 17.2.1981. Anterior to his demise the currency of the no objection certificate and the permission to construct lapsed on 31.12.1977. On 19.7 the 1st respondent taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the fact that the construction had come up to the plinth level chose to accord exemption from getting a fresh no objection certificate. On the basis of the order made by the 1 respondent the 2nd respondent on 13.8.1986 accorded permission to complete the construction. Obviously after the construction got completed there was a move to obtain the cinema licence and that was declined by the 2nd respondent on 24.8 An appeal therefrom was also rejected on 30.1.1990. We find that the petitioners objected to the grant of the cinema licence. However on a fresh move on 3.12.1990 the cinema licence was granted by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) In Special Civil Application No. 5325 of 1987 the challenge was of the accord of exemption dated 19.7.1986 and the consequential permission to complete the construction granted on 13.8.1986. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 343 of 1991 challenged the order of the 2nd respondent dated 3.12.1990. The learned single Judge who dealt with both the Special Civil Applications along with another Special Civil Application No. 4492 of 1991 preferred by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5325 of 1991 challenging also the order dated 3.12.1990 of the 2nd respondent found that the 2nd respondent having refused to accord the cinema licence on 24.8.1989 and which order of refusal has been confirmed in appeal on 30.1.1990 lacked in law the power to review the question and hence the order dated 3.12.1990 is objectionable. However the learned single Judge found that substantial justice has been meted out by the 2nd respondent and the earlier order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.8.1989 had lost sight of the non-applicability of Rules 8A and 8B introduced subsequently to the situation and that has been rectified rightly. The learned single Judge found that the petitioners lacked the locus standi to come to this Court voicing forth any grievance in respect of any of the impugned proceedings. The learned single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Applications. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge.