ARUN KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantive prayer in the writ petition is to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the proceedings Rco. 3/02/C2 dated 27-3-2003 and directing the first respondent to issue "C" Form licence to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, read with Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957.

(2.) Petitioner is the Managing Partner of Sri Manjunatha Talkies. An application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the first respondent for location of permanent cinema theatre. Initially, the first respondent issued No Objection Certificate for a period of three years for a Semi-permanent theatre. However, subsequently NOC was granted for permanent theatre and the building plan had been accordingly approved. The petitioner, however, had not completed the building within the stipulated period. Subsequently on 4-1-1995, the petitioner fild a representation before the Collector indicating that substantial portion of the building has been constructed and a fresh NOC may be issued. However, at that stage, the Collector refused to grant NOC on the footing that the petitioner should have sought for extension of period as per the previous NOC. The matter was taken to the appellate authority, who by order dated 13-2-1997 observed that NOC must be deemed to have been issued as no order had been passed by the Collector within the stipulated period of six months. Accordingly, the order of the 'Collector was set aside and the Collector was directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter the Collector issued NOC and approved the plan by order dated 29-4-1999. Thereafter on the basis of fresh plan, a fresh application has been filed and the Collector by proceedings dated 15-5-2001 approved the plan and instructed the petitioner to complete the construction by 28-4-2002. The petitioner after completion of the construction, intimated the Collector by letter dated 2-1-2002 regarding such completion and sought for issuance of "C" Form licence. Along with the application, the petitioner had enclosed other certificates as required. At that stage, by letter dated 29-4-2002, the Collector directed the petitioner to obtain approval from the Town and Country Planning authorities. In course of time the Member Secretary of the Town and Country Planning intimated that no permission can be granted as the building had already been completed without obtaining the required permission. There was further correspondence between the Collector and the Member Secretary of the Town and Country Planning regarding requirement of such permission and ultimately the Collector had written to the Joint Commissioner as well as to the Government recommending that since construction of the building had been initiated long back and building had been completed, exemption may be granted. The collector received the communication from the Government refusing to accede to the request of the Collector. Thereafter the Collector communicated to the petitioner that no permission can be given, giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that at the time when the petitioner had initially applied for grant of permission, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act were not attracted and only because of the subsequent amendment, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act were attracted to the application for grant of permission for the construction of the building for the purpose of exhibiting cinema. It is further contended that the Member Secretary of the Town and Country Planning has refused to give permission merely on the basis that the building had already been completed. However, no substantial objection has been raised to the construction of the building or to the plan, which had been duly approved by the Collector.