SENGOTTIAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition of certiorari in calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.L3/C.A28/2003 dated 8.7.2003 and to quash the same.

(2.) THE first respondent/Additional Commissioner, Land Administration (Cinema) in proceedings No.L3/C.A28/2003, dated 8.7.2003 while deciding the said petition in an appeal has observed in paragraph 4 the following:

(3.) AT this stage, the learned counsel for the second respondent brings it to the notice of this Court the decision (RAMANATHAN VS. V.BALRAJ AND OTHERS) reported in 1998 Writ L.R.192 at page 197 in paragraph 14 to 17 wherein it is observed as follows: 14. "It is settled by catena decisions of the Supreme Court, various High Courts and of our High Court that the Cinematographis Act and the Rules do not confer any substantive justifiable right on a rival in Cinema trade, apart from the option, in common with the rest of the public, to lodge an objection in response to the notice published under the relevant Rule. Thus the proprietor of Cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting Cinematograph films has no legal right under the statutory provisions or under the general law which can be said to have been subjected to or threatened with injury as a result of the grant of No objection Certificate to the rival trader. 15. A Full Bench of our High Court, comprising of Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was), K.M.Natarajan, J., and Bellie, J., while dealing with the objection raised by an existing mill owner held that he is not a person aggrieved and he has no locus standi to challenge the grant. In the said decision reported in Krishnamurthi v. The DRO, Vellore (1989 Writ L.R.335 = 1989 1 LW 526), the Full Bench has held as follows: