N R CHINNASAMY CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals against two judgments by different single Judges the point for determination is the same. Hence both of them have been argued together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In W.A. No. 1040 of 1983, the facts are summarily as follows : The 4th respondent applied for the grant of 'No objection certificate' to locate a touring cinema in S. No. 71/1 in Nachanapatti village, Omalur taluk. The appellant also applied for the same grant. The applications were preferred under R.35 in Form A, Part II of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Rules. Notices inviting objections were published in the office of the Panchayat Union, Kadayampatti on 25-4-1981, and in the Salem District Gazette dt. 21-5-1981. The Collector after considering all the objections received, preferred the 4th respondent to the appellant, whose application was rejected. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras, who confirmed the order of the Collector on 26-1-1983. On revision, the Government found that there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner of Land Administration. In the writ petition the appellant herein challenged the order of the Government on merits as well as on the ground that the order of the Government does not disclose the reasons. The learned single Judge considered all the points raised as regards the merits of the case and found that the decision of the Collector preferring the 4th respondent to the appellant as confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority did not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity. As regards the second ground he held that the revisional authority while dismissing the revision need not give reasons and added that on the perusal of the records it was found that the Government considered the revision petition with sufficient care after calling for a report and declined to interfere, being satisfied that there were no merits in the petition.

(3.) The facts relating to W.A. 319 of 1984 are summarily as follows : The 4th respondent was the beneficiary of all licence to run a touring cinema in R.S. No. 1961/A of Kulathupalayam village, Tharapuram Taluk. That licence having expired, he applied for renewal of the licence to run the touring cinema for a further period of three years on the same site. Objections were invited and after considering them the Collector refused to grant C Form licence to the 4th respondent by an order dt.15-7-1981. The 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner ol Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras, After hearing the parties concerned, the Commissioner of Land Administration by order dt.3-9-1981, remanded the matter for fresh examination to verify whether the site and the building conforms to the relevant rules in every aspect. The Collector obtained a report from the concerned Officer, inspected the site personally and after hearing the parties concerned rejected again the application of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent appealed for the second time before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras, who also inspected the site in the presence of the counsel for the objectors and the 4th respondent as well as the owner of the site and passed a detailed order stating that there was substantial compliance of the rule and granted the C Form licence to the 4th respondent. The appellant felt aggrieved by that order and preferred a revision before the Government, which by its order dt.16-2-1983, found that there was no ground to interfere. That order was challenged by way of writ before this court on merits as well as on the point that the order of the Government was liable to be quashed for its being a non-speaking order. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition, after analysing all the points submitted before him, on merits found that the order granting licence to the 4th respondent did not suffer from want of jurisdiction or any error apparent on the face of the record making it liable to be quashed. As regards the technical ground relating to the content of the order, after reviewing the decisions on that point by this court on earlier occasions the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the preponderance of authority was in favour of the view that the confirming revisional order need not be a speaking order.