NAGARJUNA THEATRE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contention raised in this writ petition pertains to the validity of Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Andbra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, in so far as it provides that the licensing authority shall consult, inter alia, the Director of lown Planning in the case of localities covered by Town Planning Schemes, before granting permission for construction of a cinema building. The contention is that, under Section 6 of the A.P. Cineas (Regulation) Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra. Area) Town Planning Act, 1920, has been specifically made in applicable in the matter of construction ot reconstruction of cinemas and therefore, the Rule which provides for consultation with the Director of Town Planning, is inconsistent with the Act, and hence void.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, has been enacted to provide for the regulation of exhibitions by means of cinematographs in the State of Andbra Pradesh. According to Section 3, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph in any place other than a place licensed under the Act, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Section 4 prescribes the licensing authority. Section 5 provides that the licensing authority shall II[ Nagarjuna Theatre vs. The State of A.P. (Jeevan Reddy J) 275 not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the Rules made under the Act have been substantially complied with and that, adequate precautions have been taken to provide for the safety of the persons attending exhibitions. Section 6, which is the corner-stone of the petitioner's submission, may now be set out;

(3.) It is necessary to notice the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 6. The several Acts mentioned therein, including the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920, have been made'in applicable only to a limited extent. The provisions iq those enactments relating to the grant of per mission for construction or reconstruction of a building, or relating to the grant of a licence for the use of any place or building for any purpose requiring a licence under those enactments, and those relating to the grant of permission to instal any machinery in anv place or building, alone are made inapplicable in the matter of construction or reconstruction of, use of, or installation of any machinery in any place or building to be used exclusively for the holding of cinematograph exhibitions. The object is clear, viz., that the construction of buildings or structures to be used for holding cinematograph exhibitions and the licensing thereof, is to be governed exclusively by the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and not by any other enactment. Undoubtedly, the several Acts mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 6 to take an example, the Village Panchayat Act, or the District Muncipalities Act, as the case may be-contain provisions regulating the construction or reconstruction of buildings, the exhibition of entertainment shows, and installation of machinery in buildings and places. To avoid overlapping of jurisdiction or probable conflict, or inconsistency between the provisions of those Acts and the provisions of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act and the Rules, such a provision is made in sub-section (1) of Section 6. The sub-section does not exclude the application of the several Acts mentioned therein, altogether. An illustration would do. There may be a town covered by the Town Planning Scheme prepared under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920. Such a scheme has statutory force, and has to be followed by the Municipality or any person proposing to make any construction within the town. This position is not effected by S. 6 (1). But for permission for construction of a building or structure intended to be used exclusively for holding of cinematograph exhibitions, a person need not approach the authorities under the Town Planning Act, or under the District Municipalities Act, or the Places of Public Resort Act, as the case may be. He has to approach only the authority prescribed under the Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. That does not, however mean that the authority under the Cinemas (Regulations) Act, while granting permission for construction, is not to be bound by the Town Planning Scheme. It cannot grant permission for construction of a cinema in a place meant as a public park. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 6 expressly provides for consulting the Chief'executive officer of the local authority concerned - who is undoubtedlv bound by the Town Planning Scheme before granting a permission or licence, as the case may be." Rule 9, which provides that the licensing authority shall, before granting permission for construction of a cinema building, call for reports from the various authorities, including the Director of Town Planning and that, it should lake a decision on the question of grant or refusal of permission on receipt of such reports, cannot be said to be inconsistant with Section 6. As stated above, Section 6 excludes the operation of the aforesaid Act only to a limited extent. There is no conflict between Rule 9 (1) (b). and Section 6 (1). The grant of permission for a cinema building is not a casual matter. Many a circumstance have to be taken into account, since the location of a cinema is bound to have its own impact in the area surrounding it, or in the locality concerned. Since the Town Planning Scheme is also meant to regulate and promote an orderly growth of the towns, it is but appropriate that the licensing authority obtains the views of the Director of Town planning also and takes the same into consideration while granting or refusing permission for construction.I am, therefore, unable to agree that Rule 9 (1) (b) is in any manner inconsistent with Section 6 of the Act, or that it is void for that reason.