NALLIKARJANT RAO Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ is to quash the order of the Joint Collector, Khamrcam in Rc.No. C (M)/668/79 dated 24-9-1979 imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 9 of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955 for alleged violation of Rule 8 of A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1970 read with Section 9 of the Act.

(2.) The facts which lead to the passing of this order in brief area. The petitioners applied for grant of permission to construct a Cinema theatre under the provisions of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955 read with the Rules made thereunder, on 30-3-1979. According to the petitioners, 16-6-1979 was an auspicious for laying the foundation for the building. He, therefore, laid the foundation and started construction on that day. On 3-7-1979 the Revenue Divisional Officer inspected the site and asked the petitioners to stop further construction and the petitioners stopped it. The Joint Collector after issuing a notice as to why the construction should not be treated as unauthorised, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by the order now impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) Rule 9 of the said Rules governs the procedure for grant of permission to construct a cinema building. Sub. rule (a) of Rule 9 provides that if the application is not in accordance with the rules, the licensing authority will return the same to the applicant for resubmission within a period of 60 days, failing which the application shali be treated as rejected and a fresh application shall be made. The petitioner's application was not returned within the said period of five days. Hence, the question of pjtitioners' application being rejected under that Rule did not arise. As required by Sub-rule (b) of Rule 9 the application was forwarded to the Electric Inspector, to the concerned Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority, the Health officer and the Police authorities asking for their reports. However no communication was sent to the petitioners even by 28-6-1979, when the period of 90 days completed from the date of the presentation of the application for grant of permission expired. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 lays down that on receipt of the reports referred to in clause (b) of Sub-rule (1), if, the licensing authority is satisfied that the other requirements of those rules are fulfilled and that the applicant is in lawful possession of the rite, he shall within twenty five days from the date of receipt of the said reports, grant the permission applied for, cither abtolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. Second proviso to sub-Rule 2 of Rule 9 further lays down as follows: