S.R. RAJASEKHARAN Vs. R. NOOKKANDI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us in objecting to the grant of a 'no objection certificate' to the first respondent for conducting a cinematographic exhibition after having obtained a 'no objection certificate under the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Act. The appellant, who is a competitor running a touring cinema objected to the grant of a 'no objection certificate' to the first -respondent, who is an independent touring cinema owner on the ground that that projected is likely to be situate within, the prohibited distance thus of lending the rule of distance provided for in Rule 14(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. The second ground of attack is that the first respondent originally gave the survey number of the property ire which his touring cinema is to be situate as one number, but later on, it transpires that on a sub -division a different survey number was given to the site on which the cinema is to be located and that, therefore, there is no re -application of the mind by the appropriate authorities in the matter of the suitability of the site. The Collector and the Board, who were the competent authorities under the Act, made the grant in favour of the first respondent. This was challenged by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution before V. Ramaswami, J. The learned Judge, after going through the records, held that the rule of distance was not offended and that the licence was granted for the location of the touring cinema on site which was taken on lease by the first respondent and which was localized by the authorities, He, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. As against this, the present writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR . Kanakaraj, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contends that it is common for the people in the locality, for whose benefit and recreational advantage the cinema was licensed, to use always the nearest pathway to the site in question by crossing the railway line and if the distance between the -existing touring cinema and the proposed site is taken through the railway line it would offend the rule of distance under Rules 14(2) and (3) of the above rules. Stress is made on the words "generally used by the members of the public" in Rule 34(3) and it is contended that wherever there is proof that fee -members of the public were using a pathway, whatever may be the nature of that pathway, it ought to be the pathway which should be reckoned for purpose of finding out the distance contemplated in Rule 14(3). Reliance is placed upon the inspection report which is extracted in the Collector's order which says: