MAHENDRA KUMAR BHAILAL PATEL Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th September, 1979 (Annexure H) passed by respondent No. 2, the order dated 4-3-1980 (Annexure I) passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 3-4-1980 (Annexure J) passed by respondent No. 2 and the grant of licence (Annexure K) dated 7-4-1980.

(2.) THE petitioner's father owns a cinema known as 'mamta Talkies' in Barwah town of which the petitioner is the Manager within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). This Mamta Talkies is a permanent cinema on licence since 1968 under the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Rules' ).

(3.) ON 18-4-1975, respondent No. 2 had granted licence for a touring cinema to respondent No. 1. This licence was cancelled on 14-12-1978 vide the order of respondent No. 2 dated 14-12-1978 (Annexure A ). The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against this order before the State Government was also dismissed on 12th March, 1979 (Annexure B ). Thereafter on 7th june, 1979, respondent No. 1 filed an application before respondent No. 2 for grant of 'no Objection Certificate' for establishing a 'quasi-permanent' cinema in Barwah town. This application which is exhibited as Annexure C was accompanied by a map showing the location and situation of the proposed 'quasi-permanent' cinema. On receipt of this application, respondent no. 2 issued a public notice dated 7-6-1979 (Annexure C 2) under Rule 3 of the 1972 Rules inviting objections to the grant of the applied 'no Objection certificate'. Respondent No. 1 had also issued a notice to that effect which is Annexure C-l. In response to the aforesaid notices the petitioner had submitted his written objections dated 25-6-1979 (Annexure D) objecting the grant of 'no Objection Certificate' to respondent No. 1, inter alia, on the ground that 1972 Rules did not contemplate establishment of a quasi-permanent cinema and hence neither an application for 'no Objection Certificate' for establishing a new quasi-permanent cinema was maintainable under rule 3 nor No objection Certificate' could be granted. This objection was heard by respondent No. 2 as a preliminary objection and rejected vide his order dated 27-8-1979 (Annexure E ). Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an application dated 3-9-1979 (Annexure F) before the State government for quashing the order (Annexure E) of respondent No. 2 and allowing the aforesaid preliminary objection. The State Government vide its order dated 23-1-1980 (Annexure G) rejected the application as not tenable and while rejecting the application it was observed that it would consider this objection while considering the recommendation of respondent No. 2 on merits for grant of 'no Objection Certificate'. In the meantime respondent No. 2 after hearing the parties on merits and vide his order dated 20th september, 1979 (Annexure H) while rejecting petitioner's objection on merits also, recommended to the State Government for grant of 'no Objection Certificate' to respondent No. 1. The State Government, respondent no. 3 accepted the recommendation; permitted vide Annexure I dated 4-3-1980 respondent No. 2 to grant 'no Objection Certificate' to respondent no. 1 which has been accordingly granted and thereafter accepting respondent No. l's application dated nil (Annexure JA) for grant of licence, the licence dated 7-4-1980 (Annexure K) has been granted for a quasi-permanent cinema. Hence the present petition.