S SUBBA RAO Vs. PULL VLRARAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W. P. No 477/76 claims to be the proprietor of a permanent cinema theatre, Sri Seetharama Talkies in Kuchipudi, Krishna District. (In this Judgment the array of parties will be referred to as in this writ petition.) One, Ranga Rao who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 6332/75 applied to the District Collector, Krishna on 6-10-1973 for permission to construct a temporary cinema theatre at Pedapudl village. On 15-10-1973, the first respondent also applied for permission to construct a temporary theatre at another site in the same village. The application of Rangarao was rejected and the application of the first respondent was ordered by two separate orders made on the 30th March, 1974. Rangarao preferred an appeal to the Government against the order rejecting his application As no appeal is provided under the Act against an order allowing the application of a competitor he filed W.P 20I6//4 in this court challenging the order granting permission to the first respondent. This was dismissed in liminl on the 12th April, 1974. He preferred W.A. 353/74 against this order. It was dismissed on the 19th April, 1974. This court observed that it was for the Government to decide whether the application for construction of a temporary theatre should be granted or not. Rangarao then filed an application to the Government and applied for stay of operation of the order granting permission to the Petitioner. This application was dismissed on 24th April, 1974.

(2.) As against this order, Rangarao filed W.P. 2514774 and applied for stay before this court, interim stav was granted on 1-5-74 The first respondent thereupon moved to have the interim stay vacated. This court heard the main writ petition itself on 20-6-76. it was observed that if Ranga Rao were to succeed in the appeal the permission granted to the first respondent would fall to the ground and if the appeal was dismissed no prejudice would be caused to him and the first respondent would be entitled to proceed with the construction. This Court therefore dismissed the writ petition but directed the Government to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of rejection of the application for permission to construct a temporary theatre, as early as possible. It is the case of the first respondent that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition he proceeded with the construction of the permanent theatre. On 7-10-1974 he applied for a licence to run the talkies in form B as required by the Andhra Pradesh Cinema Regulation Act (In this judgment referred to as the Act). At this stage, the petitioner who, as has already been stated, is the owner of a permanent cinema at Kuchipudi village, filed W.P. 5828/74 on 16-10-1974 praying for the Issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dt. 30-3-1974 granting permission to the first respondent to construct a temporary cinema. His main contention was that the distance between the proposed site for the temporary cinema by the first respondent and the permanent cinema of the petitioner was only 450 metres and as Under rule 7 (2) (c) of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Rules (in this Judgment referred to as the rules), the distance should not be less than 1000 metres, the permission granted was contrary to the rules. This court by an order dt. 3-2-1975 allowed the writ petition and the order dt. 30-3-1974 granting permission to the first respondent was quashed. Meanwhile on 18-1-1975 the Collector appears to have realised that as the distance was less than 1000 metres permission ought not to have been granted to the first respondent in view of rule 7 (2) (c). As this was not noticed at the time of granting permission he addressed the Government that under Sec. 12 of the Act exemption may be granted from the operation of rule 7 (2) (c) in favour of the first respondent. Accepting this suggestion the Government issued G. O. Rt. 154 Home (GenI. A) dt. 27-1-1975 granting exemption from the operation of rule 7 (2) (c) relating to distance in favour of the first respondent for a period of one year from the date of the order. On 1st February, 1975 a licence was also granted to the first respondent to run the cinema. W. P, No. 5828/74 filed by the petitioner for quashing the order granting permission was heard by this court on 3-2-1975 and as already noticed the order was quashed. It was however not brought to the notice of this court that exemption had been granted on 27-1-1975. Writ Appeal 98/75 filed by the first respondent was dismissed in llmini on 7-2-1975. The first respondent exhibited films between 1-2-75 when the licence was granted, and 3-2-1975. On the 4th February. 1975 however the Tahsildar addressed a communication to the first respondent not to exhibit any films in the theatre

(3.) Even though the Government had already passed an order granting exemption from rule 7(2)(c) on 27 1-1975, apparently because it felt that such an order was not valid as it was made without giving notice to the petitioner who was the owner of the permanent cinema nearby, the Government issued a show cause notice on 30-7-1975 to the petitioner as to why the first respondent should not be granted exemption. The petitioner thereupon requested the Government to disclose the grounds on which such exemption was intended to be granted and a copy of the application, if any, made by the first respondent to grant exemption. As he did not receive any reply he filed W.P. 5107/75 praying for the Issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Government from proceeding further in pursuance of the show cause notice. It was contended firstly that the show cause notice could not be issued suo motu by the Government without any application on the part of the first respondent and secondly that the grounds should be disclosed to the petitioner. By its order dt, 10-11-1975 (which is reported in 1975 II A.W.R. 418) this, court held that the Government was entitled to exercise the power under Sec 12 suo motu, but as it was of the view that the notice was defective as it did not give any particulars on the basis of which exemption was proposed to be granted and the petitioner could not make an effective representation to the notice, it quashed the notice. It however observed that the order does not prevent the Government from issuing a fresh notice giving particulars so that the petitioner may submit his explanation. Accordingly a fresh show cause notice was Issued on 8-12-1975. It was stated therein as follows :