KANCHEEPURAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Kancheepuram Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, The petitioner municipality applied for the grant of a 'No objection certificate, for conversion of an already existing building Arignar Anna Kalai Arangam into a permanent cinema theatre in Kancheepuram town. The said application was made to the third respondent. Two dates are mentioned in the order of the third respondent with reference to the making of the application. One is 4-7-1978 and the other is 16-12-1978. The notice required under R. 35A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, with reference to the first application was published on the notice board of the Collectorate on 25-7-1978 and on the notice board of the petitioner municipality on 26-7-1978. With reference to the second application records disclose that the publication of the notice were effected on 28-121978. The Superintendent of police, Chengalpattu (West), did not have any objection to the request of the petitioner municipality. Equally so, there was no objection from any other quarter except from the 4th respondent who was himself the chairman of the petitioner municipality at the relevant point of time when the decision was taken to convert Arignar Anna Kalai Arangarn into a permanent cinema theatre. The objection of the 4th respondent was not made before the licensing authority. viz, the third respondent. but there was a representation dated 9-3-1979 to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu which, however, got forwarded to the 3rd respondent for consideration. According to this objection of the 4th respondent, the existing auditoriun is being utilised for Public performance like dramas and music performances and it is not desirable to convert the same into a Permanent cinema theatre on the only ground that the source of revenue from the existing auditorium to the petitioner municipality is meagre, considering the investment in putting up the same. This objection of the 4th respondent has been considered and sustained by the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner municipality on 3-5-1979 under Sec. 5 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act IX of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. As against the order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner municipality preferred an appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent chose to concur with the order of the 3rd respondent and dismissed the appeal on 20-8-1979. The petitioner municipality further agitated the matter by wav of a revision to the first respondent and the first respondent by order dated 20-5-1980 rejected the revision. The petitioner municipality challenges the orders of respondents 1 to 3 in the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. K. Alagiriswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner municipality, urges two grounds seeking interference in writ jurisdiction. The first ground is that the objection of the 4th respondent having not been made to the licensing authority, viz., the 3rd respondent. With in 15 days from the date of publication of the notices as enjoined by R. 35-A of the Rules, the authorities ought not to have considered the said objection and negatived the application of the petitioner municipality for the grant of the 'No obiection certificate, Learned counsel further submits that the objection of the 4th respondent was not with regard to the non-compliance by the petitioner Municipality of the provisions of any of the Rules and on this ground also the said objection' ought not to have been countenanced. To appreciate this contention, it becomes necessary to extract R. 35-A of the Rules-

(3.) An objection from a member of the public, if not made within the time prescribed by R. 35-A of the rules, has got to be summarily rejected, is stipulated in the said rule itself. Such an objector has no audience at all before the licensing authority and even if the order goes against him and in favour of the applicant, the objector has no locus standi to agitate the matter, further by way of an appeal, is a well settled proposition because such an objector cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved person. The failure to make objection within the time stipulated under R. 35-A, of the rules by any member of the public can only lead to the conclusion that no member of the public has any grievance against the grant as such. When the rule is explicit, stipulating summary rejection of such belated objections, it is not proper on the part of the authorities concerned to take note of and countenance such objections and reject the application of the petitioner Municipality on that basis. A view, similar to the one which I have taken has also been expressed by Mohan J. in Subramania K. S. P v. Commr. of Land Revenue and Commercial-taxes, (1981) 94 mad LW 380: (AIR 1981 Mad 346):-