HIS HOLINESS CHITRAMUTHU ADIGAL ATHMA SANTHI NILAYAM PANNAIKULAM POST RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT AT MADURAI MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. THE second respondent applied for a -No Objection Certificate- in 1978 for running a touring cinema. THE appellant filed objections stating that his institution Athma Santhi Nilayam is a place of public worship and the situs of the touring cinema is within a distance of 200 metres from his institution. THE objections were overruled and a no objection certificate was granted in favour of the second respondent, on 13th August, 1978. THEreafter the licence was renewed at the instance of the second respondent and the latest order of renewal was passed on 4th January, 1981, renewing the licence upto 31st January, 1981. THE appellant filed objections to the grant of renewal of licence similar to those which he raised at the time of grant of no objection certificate. Overruling the objection the first respondent renewed the licence in favour of the second respondent, observing that it is open to the appellant to agitate the same before some other forum, other than the licensing authority. Against this order, the appellant filed a writ petition and that was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, holding that there is no provision under the Act or the rules entitling the appellant to prefer objections at the time of renewal of the licence and as the objection of the appellant was considered at the time of grant of -No Objection Certificate-, it is needless for the licensing authority to consider the very same objection at the time of renewal of licence. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that even where a licence is renewed, it is obligatory on the part of the licensing authority under rule 109(1)(a) to satisfy itself that the building and the site conform to the relevant rules and the relevant rule 103 provides that the travelling cinema should not be located within a distance of 201 metres from a temple, and as the appellant-s Athma Santhi Nilayam is a place of public worship situated within a distance of 200 metres from the situs of the touring cinema, the licensing authority should consider the objections of the appellant to satisfy itself at the time of renewal of the licence that the site in question conformed to the relevant rule viz., 103.