R M SUNDARAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the final stage of a bottle that has been waged before the Collector, before the Board of Revenue and before a single Judge of this court. The question in those appeals is a very simple one and has been posed by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal in one sentence in the penultimate para. We shall extract that sentence:

(2.) TO understand this question, we shall state the necessary facts. The appellant before us in these two writ appeals applied as envisaged by Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957, for a no objection certificate under Rule 36 and in form No. B. This application was objected to by the respondent in W. A. 473 of 1976 who runs a convent school in the vicinity of the place where the semi permanent theatre was sought to be established by the appellant, and also by a rival operator of a theatre, who is the respondent in W. A. 474 of 1976. The school contended that the establishment of a semi permanent theatre would disturb the working of the school and cause inconvenience not to say nuisance to the inmates of the school, which consisted of Nuns and the students of the school. The respondent in W. A. 474 of 1976 apparently motivated by the possibility of adverse effect on his income by the coming into existence of yet another theatre also raised his objections. All objections were overruled by the Collector excepting the one raised by the school that disturbance and inconvenience would be caused to the inmates of the school from the sound emanating from the theatre to be established. To prevent this disturbance he imposed a condition in the no objection certificate that the theatre to be constructed must be sound proof. Such a condition could be imposed and the form of the certificate, form B, itself envisages special conditions being imposed. No point was made before us that there is any invalidity in imposing such a condition. Appeals were taken by the respondents in these two appeals before the Board of Revenue and one of the grounds taken in the appeal was whether it was possible to establish a sound proof semi permanent theatre "in accordance with the existing rules. " The appeals which contained other grounds as well were dealt with on the merits and were dismissed by the Board of Revenue. But the Board of Revenue did not specifically express any opinion on the ground whether it is possible to establish a sound proof semi permanent theatre in accordance with the rules. It was in these circumstances, that the learned Judge made the observation which we extracted earlier in this judgment. As a result of that lacuna this court ordered-

(3.) THE scheme of the Act and the rules indicate double procedure. First, there should be a preliminary investigation as to whether a no objection certificate should be issued. This procedure ends with the grant of no objection certificate under form B or a refusal to do so, after a consideration of the points mentioned in Section 5 (1) of the Act, and if and when a no objection certificate is issued the procedure for the issue of a licence in form C would commence on an application with plans and further details of the particular structure to be made in accordance with the rules applicable for the establishment of a semi permanent theatre being presented. At this stage too objections can be raised and those objections will have to be considered by the authorities and the authorities have to be satisfied that the Act and the rules have been complied with before the C form licence is issued. On the facts of this case, the authorities will necessarily have also to be satisfied that the specific condition imposed that the theatre should be 'sound proof should also be satisfied. This stage has not been reached and the question cannot possibly arise now. We must, therefore, confine our attention now to the question whether the grant of a no objection certificate to the appellant subject to the condition that the semi permanent theatre should have a sound proof system is in order and is in accordance with law and more specifically, whether, as the learned Judge posed the question in the judgment under appeal, a semi permanent theatre could be constructed with sound proof system in the face of the existing rules. " The learned Judge apparently had Rule 79-A (4) (d) in mind. And no other rule was relied on or referred to in the course of the arguments which would prevent the construction of a sound proof semi permanent theatre. We shall now extract that sub-rule: