V DHANDAYUTHAPANI Vs. S P KRISHNAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the State Government has power to review its own order made under S.11 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 thereinafter referred to as the Act). By an order dated 3-7-1985, the appellant. who carries on the business of running a touring cinema talkies, was exempted from the provisions of R.14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The first respondent was also granted a 'no objection certificate' in 1980 for locating a permanent theatre in Survey No. 2/1 Singarampettai village, Uthangarai taluk, Dharmapuri Dist. and in pursuance of that certificate, respondent No. 1 put up a permanent theatre and was also granted a 'C' form licence. The first respondent had thus been exhibiting pictures in his permanent theatre since 29-8-1983.

(2.) The licence of the present appellant was due to expire on 18-4-1984. He, therefore, made an application for exemption with regard to the distance specified in R.14(2) of the rules. The State Government by an order dated 11-1-1985 rejected the request of the appellant for the grant of an exemption after getting reports from the Collector and considering the representations of the Commissioner of Land Administration.

(3.) After his application for exemption was rejected on 11-1-1985 the appellant once again renewed the request by his application dated 26-2-1985. This application purported to be one for the review of the order dated 11-1-1985. The case sought to be made out in the review application was that if the appellant was allowed to continue to exhibit films in his touring talkies, additional revenue could be earned by the Government and that there was sufficient scope for the additional cinema theatre to be there. This request was granted on 3-7-1985 even though the Collector and the Commissioner of Land Administration were against the granting of the exemption. Indeed, the order granting the exemption specifically states that these authorities had recommended rejection of the application for review. The justification shown in the order for reviewing the earlier order of rejection of the application for granting exemption was that there was scope for functioning of both the permanent theatre and the touring cinema talkies, and both these theatres would fetch good revenue to the Government besides providing entertainment to the people of that locality satisfactorily.