R. SUBRAMANIA ODAYAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE BY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PROHIBITION AND TRANSPORT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 20th February, 1956, the Additional District Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli issued a licence under Section 7 of the Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 to the Manager of the Kala Touring Talkies, permitting him to put up a temporary cinema -shed on S.F. Nos. 310/1, 310/2 and 245/1 of Melakalkandar Kottai Village, hamlet of Alathur. In April 1957, the Collector of Tiruchirapalli issued what is described as a 'no -objection' certificate to the proprietor of the same talkies in respect of S.F. No. 310/1 of Alathur Village. This meant that subject to the other requirements of the statute in that behalf being satisfied a temporary cinema could be constructed and run in S.F. No. 310/1 of Alathur village. In June, 1957, the Collector granted a similar 'no -objection' certificate to the proprietor of the Vani Touring Talkies in respect of a survey field which is . two furlongs away from S.F. No. 310/1. One of the rules framed under the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act prohibits the grant of a license to run a touring cinema if it should be situated within four furlongs of another to which a license has already been granted. Since 'no -objection' certificates had been granted to two sites within about two furlongs of each other, the Collector had to decide to whom he would give what is called the C Form license, that is to say the license actually permitting exhibition of films. He decided to give the license to Vani Touring Talikes. The Kala Touring Talkies thereupon appealed to the Board and by an order it made on 9th November, 1957, the Board set aside the order of the Collector and directed the issue of a license to the Kala Touring Talkies. The proprietor of the Vani Touring Talkies has filed the present writ petition calling in question the order passed by the Board.

(2.) RULE 109(1) of the rules framed under the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act read as follows:

(3.) THE word 'site' can be properly used to describe either the exact extent of land occupied by a building or a larger area of which such extent forms a part. For example when we speak of the site of a shop in a bazaar, it would ordinarily be only the site actually occupied by the building proper. But when we speak of the site of a factory or the site of a college or the site of a hostel, the word can properly include not merely the actual extent of land on which the building stands but also the grounds surrounding it. In what sense the word is used would depend upon the context. Now, it will be noticed that in the second sentence of Rule 109(1) the expression used is 'there shall be an interval of three months before the same site is again licensed.' The word 'site' in that sentence is used in relation to the word license and must be construed in relation to that word. This means that when a license has been granted for a specified extent of land a license for it cannot be granted again except after an interval of three months. It makes no difference whether the land for which the license was first granted comprises only a part of a survey field or whether it comprises several survey fields. Where the prior license covers a number of survey fields or sub -divisions of survey fields, the prohibition created by this rule cannot be evaded by shifting the cinema -shed to another survey field or sub -division in the area covered by the earlier license. The argument that since the sub -divisions are different the sites are different will not avail. The construction put upon the word 'site' by the Board appears to me to be clearly wrong.