KARTHIKEYA TOURING THIRAI ARANGAM Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions may be dealt with together since they involve overlapping issues.

(2.) THE petitioner in these writ petitions is the proprietor of a touring cinema theatre carrying on business under the name and style of'sri Karthikeya Touring Thirai Arangam'at Surampatti Village , Erode Taluk, Periyar District. THE salient facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petitions alone need be mentioned and there is no need for adverting to all the elaborate details furnished in the affidavits. THE fact remains that in the year 1987 while the petitioner was running his touring cinema on a second term licence, the same was stopped on the ground that his touring that his touring cinema lies within the prohibited distance of 1609 metres of the nearest Srinivasa permanent theatre. At that stage, the petitioner approached the State Government seeking for exemption from the applicability of Rule 14 (2)of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, invoking the powers under Sec. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act. THE Government in G. O. Ms. No. 759, home (Cinemas-I) Department, dated 4. 4. 1988 after taking into account the population details and the need for the locality, have passed orders as hereunder: 'hence exemption under Rule 14 (2) of the Tamil nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957 in favour of touring cinema arose. Considering the present inadequacy of cinema theatres in the area and the loss of income to the local body and to the Government, the needs of the public could be fully met only if exemption from Rule 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 is granted to Sri Karthikeya Touring talkies, surampatti Village, Erode Taluk, Periyar District. THE Government have, therefore, decided to grant exemption to Sri Karthikeya Touring Cinema theatre, surampatti village from Rule 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation)Rules, 1957. 7. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 11 of the tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act IX of 1955) the governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts Sri Karthikeya Touring Talkies, surampatti village, Erode Taluk, Periyar District from the provisions of Rule 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957.' It appears that after the expiry of the second term of the touring cinema, the petitioner had closed down his touring cinema for a period of three months in terms of Rule 109 (2) of the Rules and thereafter applied for'c'form licence before the second respondent by complying with necessary formalities in terms of Rule 109 (2) read with the other relevant rules. Since there was delay in complying with the request of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner moved this Court in W. P. No. 7021 of 1993 and on the directions issued by this Court to pass orders on the request for the licence within three months and to issue'e'form permit in the meantime, the petitioner approached the licensing authority, the second respondent herein. THE second respondent by his order dated 17. 11. 1993 has chosen to reject the application for licence applying the prohibition contained in Rule 14 (2) of the Rules against the petitioner. At the time, the second respondent also has chosen to place reliance upon the orders of the first respondent in G. O. Ms. No. 3289, Home (Cinemas) Department, dated 2. 11. 1993 clarifying the position that the earlier exemption granted on 4. 4. 1988 was not a permanent one but confined to the grant of second term licence alone with reference to which it was sought for at that time. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed W. P. No. 21211 of 1993 to quash the order of the second respondent refusing the grant of'c form licence in favour of the petitioner in respect of his touring talkies. THE petitioner has also filed W. P. No. 20893 of 1993 seeking to quash the order of the first respondent- Government in g. O. Ms. No. 3289, Home (Cinemas), dated 2. 11. 1993 whereunder the first respondent has chosen to clarify the position that the exemption granted to the petitioners touring cinema in G. O. Ms. No. 759, Home (Cinemas), dated 4. 4. 1988 from the provisions of Rule 14 (2) of the Rules was for the particular camp alone and not as a permanent one.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate has made available the entire file relating to G. O. Ms. No. 759, Home (Cinemas), dated 4. 4. 1988. It is seen from the said file that in the copy of the application made by the petitioner that the exemption was sought for with reference to the balance of four years of the running of the touring cinema for the second term. Even that apart, a careful analysis of the detailed order would go to show that the exemption was granted with reference to the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing as on that point of time of consideration only. This is made clear from the first paragraph as well as the penultimate paragraph of the Government order dated 4. 4. 1988. Even when the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules are considered, it could be seen that what has been asked for by the petitioner on the earlier occasion was for an exemption in respect of his touring cinema from the rigour of operation of Rule 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu cinemas (Regulation), Rules, 1957 hereinafter referred to as'the rules'which provide that the restrictions in respect of distance between cinemas particularly between a touring cinema in any place and the nearest permanent cinema located in the same local area or in the adjacent village, panchayat or town shall not be within 1,609 km. THE exemption has been sought for under Sec. 11 of the Act under which the Government has been enabled to, by an order in writing exempt, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they may impose any cinematograph exhibitions or class of cinematograph exhibitions or any place where a cinematograph exhibition is given from any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. THE exemption granted in the case on hand under G. O. Ms. No. 759, Home (Cinemas), dated 4. 4. 1988 as could be seen from paragraph 7 of the said order is to exempt Sri Karthikeya touring Talkies, Surampatti village from the provisions of Rule 14 (2) of the rules. THE exemption therefore, for purpose of Sec. 11 appears to have been granted only vis-a-vis the touring talkies in question keeping in mind and consideration the cinematograph exhibition and not with reference to any place as such. In case where the exemption is in favour of a touring cinema for purpose of cinematograph exhibition, the life of the order of exemption would and can enure only upto the expiry of the particular term of the touring cinema with reference to which such exemption was granted. THE duration of life of the exemption order of the period of validity of exemption granted is necessarily in built and confined as well as restricted by the limited nature or duration of the term of touring cinema itself. A construction otherwise would be not only opposed to the policy of the Act but against public interest. If that is the scope and purport of the order of exemption dated 4 4 1988 as also its duration of life, there is hardly any legal basis for the grievance made on the alleged violation of principles of natural justice or the clarification made or the action of the first respondent in clarifying what was an obvious and an inescapable position. Since I have construed the scope or duration of life of the exemption order to be confined to the second term of the cinematograph exhibition of the petitioner touring cinema, the claim that the petitioner has acquired a right and that too a permanent right of exemption and such a right has come to be curtailed by the impugned order dated 2. 11. 1993 is wholly misconceived without any basis and as such is liable to be rejected. THE mere fact that the subsequent order by way of clarification came to be passed on 2. 11. 1993, does not mean that any of the legally protected or vested rights of the petitioner has been interfered with or infringed by the first respondent. Consequently the plea of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of denial of an opportunity before passing such an order does not merit countenance by this Court.