K R SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. No. 1231 of 1982: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith , the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 264, Home (Cinemas) Department, dated 5th February, 1982, reversing the proceedings of the Commissioner for Land Administration in D. Dis. No. 24240 of 1981 dated 25th May, 1981, and confirming the order of the Collector of Periyar District in D. Dis. No. 149156 of 1960-C-2 dated 7th. May 1981 negativing the request of the touring Cinema in R. S. Nos. 39/2 and 39/3 of Periakodiveri Villrge and quash the said order of the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 264, Home (Cinemas) Department, dated 5th February, 1982.

(2.) W.A. No. 653 of 1982: Appeal under item 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of Justice Mr. V. Ramaswami dated 6th October, 1982 and made in W.M.P. No.6665 of 1982 presented to this Court, praying to issue directions to the Collector of Periyar District to issue the no objection certificate to the petitioner in respect of his touring Cinema located inR.S. No. 39-2 and 3 of Periakodiveri Village in Gobi Taluk, as directed by the Commissioner for Land Administration, Madras, in his D.Ds. No. 24240 of 1981 dated 25th May, 1981, as to enable the petitioner to instal the machinery and complete all arrangements and obtain the C Form licence and commence the Cinema pending the abovesaidW.P. No. 1231 of 1982, on the file of this Court. petitioner was that the fourth respondent did not prefer any objection before the Collector within 15 days presented under the rules. Consequently the 4th respondent should not be considered to be an aggrieved person and he had no locus standi to file a revision before the Government against the order passed by the second respondent, Commissioner, on 25th May, 1981, directing, the issue of no objection certificate to the petitioner. The matter is not res Integra end is covered by a catena of decisions of this Court from the ratio of which we do not find any reason to differ. Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, confers power on the licensing authority to grant or refuse a licence. Rule 35 of Part II (a) deals with the approval of location of permanent cinemas. Rule 100 of the Rules states that a person who intends to build a travelling cinema building shall follow the procedure in rule 35 in part II (a). Rule 106-A is to the effect that on receipt of an application for the issue of a no objection certificate the licensing authority shall publish a notice in the notice board of the office of the licensing authority and the concerned Panchayat Union. The notice must call for objections, if any, from the public in regard to the non-compliance by the applicant of the provisions of any of the rules or the violation thereof. The rule further enjoins that the objections should be filed before the licensing authority within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. The rule further states that any objection filed after the expiry of 15 days shall be summarily rejected. The interpretation of this rule came up for consideration before Bench of this Court in S.P. Somasundaram v. The Board of Revenue Commissioner of Land Reveuue and Cinematograph Act1 One of the questions which the Bench was called upon to consider was the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of rule 106-A in the matter of preferring the objections. The Bench took the view that a member of the public who does not file the objections within the time prescribed under rule 106-A could not be an aggrieved person.

(3.) The same question arose before Mohan, J. in W. P. No. 3505 of 1979, and W.P. No. 4523 of 1979, Sathia-dev, J. in W.P. No. 4442 of 1978 and Nainar Sundaram, J. in W.P. No. 3510 of 1980 and W.P. No. 452 of 1981. All the learned Judges have consistently followed the ratio laid down by the Bench in W.A. No. 63 of 1973. The correctness of the legal position was again canvassed before one of us in Provincial Superior, Cluny Convent v. State of Tamil Nadu2. In that case, the Bench decision was sought to be distinguished on the ground that in the case before the Bench the writ petitioner had not filed any objections at all and, therefore, the Bench took the view that the person concerned could not be treated as an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 5 (7). To highlight this, the following observations from the Bench decision were cited:- "All objections under that rule shall be filed in writing before the licensing authority within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. The rule further prescribes that any objection filed after the period shall be liable to be summarily rejected. That means that if the authority rejected the representations on the ground that they were filed out of time, the repre-sentator would have no further right to be heard. The case of respondents 2 and 3 is worse. They made no representations. From the above observations of the Bench it was sought to be argued that the Bench impliedly meant to say that the authority could have accepted the representations even after the expiry of 15 days. This argument was not accepted. Afrer considering the Bench decision and the ratio laid down by three other learned Judges already referred to, it was observed as follows: