P MARIAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.11270 of 1987. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein; and the respondents in the writ petition are the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. There were two applicants for the grant of no-objection certificate for locating permanent theatres in Sivagurunathapuram village, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The petitioner was one of the two applicants for the grant of no-objection certificate for locating a permanent theatre. The second-respondent was another applicant for the grant of a no-objection certificate for locating a permanent theatre. The petitioner objected to the grant of no-objection certificate for locating a permanent theatre to the second-respondent. The Collector deemed fit to grant the licence in favour of the petitioner; and on 29.9.1986 the application of the second-respondent was rejected by the Collector. The second-respondent preferred an appeal as against the order of the Collector and on 26.8.1987 the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the second-respondent. The second-respondent went by way of revision before the first-respondent and the first respondent by the order impugned in the writ petition allowed the revision preferred by the second-respondent and directed the grant of a no-objection certificate to the second-respondent. The petitioner impugned the order passed by the first-respondent by filing the writ petition. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition, the petitioner contended that the powers of revision conferred on the first-respondent do not enable him to re-appraise the factual findings rendered by the first authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. The second-respondent would also advance a contention that the petitioner lacked the very locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The learned single Judge, after adverting to the pronouncement in G.Alagiri v. Collector, Thanjavur, A.I.R. 1983 Mad. 134:I.L.R. (1983)1 Mad. 176, rendered by one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.), held that the revisional powers are not so restricted as thought of by the petitioner and they enable the first-respondent to pass the order impugned in the writ petition. The learned single Judge countenanced the contention put forth by the second-respondent that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition. In doing so, the learned single Judge has opined that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court concisely reported in M.L.Krishnamurthy v. The District Revenue Officer, Vellore, N.A . District, 1989 T.L.N.J. 200, would apply. The result is, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. As already noted, this writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) MR.M.R.Narayanaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, would first submit that the scope of the powers of revision conferred on the first-respondent has to be gleaned from Sec.9-B of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act IX of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act and a proper construction of that provision does not enable the first respondent to do a reappraisal of the factual findings rendered by the two authorities below, which, in fact, has been indulged in by the first respondent in the instant case.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to examine this question we feel obliged to extract Sec.9-B of the Act, which runs as follows: