DARSAILOVA KHAWLHRING Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the Secretary of United Pentecostal Church, Aizawl town, a religious society established and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, impugns the No objection Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, Mizorarn, under Rule 4(11) of the Assam Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') in favor of the Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 4 submitted an application in 1976 to the Deputy Commissioner Aizawl, who is the licensing authority under the Rules, for a No objection Certificate for construction of a cinema house at a site near to the Church of the Petitioner who on 7.12.76 wrote to the Deputy Commissioner vehemently objecting to the construction of the cinema house pointing out that the serenity of the Church services would be disturbed by such cinema house. On 12.8.77 the Deputy Commissioner granted the No Objection Certificate valid for a year to the Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner sent various representations to different authorities and ultimately on 12.12.78 sent a representation by way of appeal to the Lt. Governor of Mizoram pointing out the restrictions imposed under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 12 of the Rules in the matter of granting a cinema license and pointing out that tae site was within a radius of 44.20 mtrs. from the Church. It appears, on 12.1.79 the Deputy Commissioner sent a letter to the Petitioner to come to him on 24.1.79 along with other Church leaders to discuss about the matter which the Petitioner did but without any favorable decision. On 27.1.79 the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the Petitioner noting the discussions made on 24.1.79 and assuring him that through executive orders, the authority would regulate cinema shows, specially their timings, in such a manner that the Church services would not be affected. Hence this petition.

(2.) MR . J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits, inter alia, that the grant of the No Objection Certificate is violative of Rule 5(2) of the Rules which puts a bar against constructing a cinema house within a considerable distance from the exiting hospitals, educational institutions, place of worship, cremation grounds etc; that the Petitioner being an aggrieved person having objected the Deputy Commissioner erred in granting the No objection certificate without disposing the Petitioner's objections according to the law; that the grant of the impugned No Objection Certificate being in clear violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India the same is illegal, ultra vires and void and liable to be set aside and quashed.

(3.) MR . B.C. Barua, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 submits, inter alia, that immediately after receipt of the No objection Certificate he started construction of the cinema house according to the specification and has already laid sound proof materials to prevent disturbance and has also constructed the sound tracks and only a small portion remains for completion; that the distance was considered reasonable by the Deputy Commissioner who discussed with the Church leaders and the Government approved the issue of the No Objection Certificate, that the serenity of the Church will not be disturbed as there is the M.L.A. Hostel in between the Church and the hall which will be sound proof ; that the petition has become in fructuous in view of the near completion of cinema house constructed pursuant to the No objection Certificate; and that the Petitioner has no legal right to approach this Court objecting against the No Objection Certificate. He also submits that he is agreeable to abide by any condition laid down by the State Government besides his making the hall a sound proof one.