KRISHNA CINEMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Rajkot dated 21st August, 1964 (Annexure 'K') refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate to the petitioners under Rule 5 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. The petitioners are engaged in the business of cine-exhibiting and own a cinema theatre at Rajkot which is run under the name of "Krishna Cinema". It has a sitting capacity of 600 persons. They are engaged in this business since 1948. To the north-east of the existing cinema house, the petitioners own an open plot of land and they desire to construct an annexe to the existing building on that open plot with a view to construct a second auditorium with a separate screen to exhibit cinema films; either idea being to exhibit English films continuously. On the 14th of May 1963, they made applications to the District Magistrate, Rajkot, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Rajkot and the Chief Office of the Rajkot Borough Municipality, seeking from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. permission to give No Objection Certificate under the Rules and also from the District Magistrate, Rajkot permission to grant No Objection Certificate under Rule 5. The Rajkot Municipality granted the required permission by its two letter dated 22nd May and 28th May, 1963, subject to certain conditions to be complied with in the construction work which also required the petitioner to complete the building within period of one year from the date of the issue of the permission. Similarly the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Rajkot by his letter dated 18th September, 1963, addressed to the Additional District Magistrate, Rajkot granted the No Objection Certificate under the Rules. It may be mentioned that with these applications made by the petitioners, they had forwarded copies of the plans of the proposed building and also the surrounding site plans were sent. It appears that the petitioners in view of the fact that the Rajkot Municipality had imposed a condition on the petitioners to build their construction within a period of one year from 22nd May, 1963, started construction of the annexe according to the plans approved by the Executive Engineer.

(3.) The period of the petitioners' annual licence for the existing Krishna Cinema was to expire on the 31st of December, 1963 and they had to apply for renewal of the said licence and under the impression that as they were constructing a mere annex to their original Krishna Cinema theatre, they by their letter dated 11th December, 1963, requested the District Magistrate to renew the licence and permit the addition of sitting capacity so as to include the seats of the proposed new building. On the 2nd of January, 1964, however, the District Magistrate informed the petitioners that as they were constructing a separate auditorium with a separate screen, the existing licence could not be renewed including the sitting capacity of the new building. It may be mentioned that before this reply was received by the petitioners, the petitioners had forwarded a letter on the 2nd of January, 1964 (Annexure "F") to the District Magistrate stating that in any case if the annexe is not considered to be the part of the same premises and if it is considered to be a separate premises, then a separate licence may be given to them for that annexe. Because of this request of the petitioners, it appears that the District Magistrate started separate proceedings for the purpose of complying with the request of the petitioners for the annex and a public notice as required under the Rules was published by the District Magistrate on the 30th January, 1964, inviting objections from the public. In the said notice the description of the existing site and the proposed building and the surrounding area are stated. It is not a disputed fact that in reply to this public notice, no objections were received from the public. On the 16th of March, 1964, after the period expired for submitting of such objections, the District Magistrate forwarded to the State Government his report in the prescribed from "C" under Rule 5 (1). It may be noticed here that the District Magistrate is the Licensing Authority within the meaning of the Rules. In the said report, a copy whereof is produced, with the rejoinder filed by the petitioners at Annexure 'I' the District Magistrate has stated that the petitioner has requested the grant of a No Objection Certificate as he desires to construct an annexe adjacent to his existing cinema house; that he has complied with the requirements of no-objection certificate from the Executive Engineer and has also obtained the permission from the Borough Municipality of Rajkot. He has also stated therein that according to Rule 4, Public notices were published in three local newspapers in form 'B' but no objections were filed by any one; that he had filled in 'C' form which was forwarded with the letter and in his opinion, as the request was to permit him to construct an annexe adjacent to his existing cinema theatre, no new questions arise to be considered and he recommended that the No Objection Certificate may be granted to the petitioners under Rule 5 (2). In the form 'C' sent with the letter, in column 13 the Licensing Authority has to give his opinion and also the recommendation, if any, and he has repeated in the said column what he had stated in his forwarding letter. But there is one remark which need be noted. He has stated therein that the construction work which the petitioners have done, they should have done after the No Objection Certificate was issued to them but that the construction that they have made being in compliance with the requirement in accordance with the rules, and as the Executive Engineer and the Municipality have also granted their permissions, there is no objection to the No Objection Certificate being granted by the State for the new construction and he recommended the issue of the certificate. The Government, however, did not grant the certificate but on the 9th July, 1964, informed the petitioners that their application for constructing a permanent annex near the present existing cinema and for obtaining a No Objection Certificate could not be accepted. Petitioners thereupon appealed to the State Government on the 10th of July, 1964, explaining to the Government all the relevant facts which according to the petitioners were necessary to be placed before the Government to entitle them to the No Objection Certificate. However on the 21st of August, 1964, Government replied that the appeal was rejected as Government did not see any reasons to change the decision already taken by the District Magistrate and which was communicated to the petitioners by his letter dated 9th July, 1964. Thereafter the petitioners made four representations to the Government dated 11th September, 1964, 9th October, 1964, 23rd January, 1965 and 30th January, 1965. The petitioners however did not receive any reply from the Government till the 29th June, 1965 whereby the Government informed the petitioners that the Government saw no reason for reconsidering the matter and making any alteration in the order passed by the District Magistrate. The petitioners were also informed not to make any further representations as they would not be considered and will be filed. The petitioners were further told that if they desired they may undertake fresh proceedings under the Rules for constructing a permanent cinema on the said site and make a new application under the relevant Rules to the District Magistrate, Rajkot for obtaining a No Objection Certificate and on going through those proceedings anew, the District Magistrate and the Government will take their decision on merits. Being dissatisfied with this, the petitioners have come to this Court for redress. This petition is filed on the 30th of July, 1965.