P SUNDARARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner was issued a 'C' form licence to establish a permanent theatre called, `Rakki Theatre' in Ambattur and started exhibiting films from 24-41981. Petitioner claims to have spent about Rs.15 lakhs. Third respondent obtained a no objection certificate and a C form licence to establish a touring cinema for the period from 21-5-1980 to 19-4-1981 was granted, and thereafter, applied for renewal beyond 19-4-1981. Since his application was hit by R 14(2) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas(Regulation) Rules, as third respondent's touring talkies was within the prohibited distance of the petitioner's theatre, which had commenced on 24-4-1981, second respondent did not renew the licence, but granted only an "E" permit, as an indulgence, so that he may close down the cinema within reasonable time, granted by him upto 19-6-1981. On 20-6-1981 third respondent's touring cinema was stopped.

(2.) Petitioner was served with a notice on 19-3-1982, asking him whether he has got any objection to third respondent conducting touring cinema for the rest of the licensing period. Petitioner gave his reply on 25-3-1982, pointing out that the touring cinema is located within one kilometer from his theatre and it would spoil his business and the loan taken by him from Bank cannot be repaid, if the touring cinema is to exist. It was only when the impugned order of first respondent granting exemption of the operation of R. 14 (2) was received, which in turn enabled third respondent to complete the 5-year period of conducting touring cinema, he realised the gravity of the situation and filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the said G.O.

(3.) On behalf of third respondent Mr.Indrasenan learned counsel would submit that in view of the decision of this Court in Kailasam v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, (1981) 2 Mad LJ 210: (AIR 1982 noc 85), when exemption is granted by invoking Sec. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Act XX of 1955, there is no need for giving an oppurtunity to any third party and therefore, petitioner cannot claim that he had not been heard before the impugned order was passed. Even, if for any reason it be held that any such oppurtunity should be extended to an identifiably affected party, in the instant case, when petitioner's objections have been called for, he cannot state that the impugned order was passed without reference to him.