VIDHYADHAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is a social worker and is a resident of Khetri Nagar and M/s Deen Bandhu Talkies are running Cinema very close to the Central Public School, which is creating nuisance in the studies of the students and in accordance with the provisions of rule 16 of the Rajasthan Cinematograph Rules, 1959 no cinema can be allowed to be operated at a distance of 200 meters from the educational institution. It has also been submitted that the said cinema is running shows at 12. 30 P. M. and 3. 15 PM, which is creating hinderance in the education of the students and besides this, a loud-speaker has been placed out side cinema hall, which is creating nuisance and noise. It has also been submitted that the building is not in proper condition and the wiring is in such a bad condition that it may be injurious to the public. THE cinema owners have not provided parking space and inspite of all these contraventions, representations were made to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and they have not cared to enforce the provisions of law. A prayer has been made that M/s Deen Bandhu Talkies should not be allowed to exhibit the films.

(2.) MR. Rathore appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has denied the allegations motives and it has been submitted that the petition has been filed with some ulterior & the petitioner is neither the resident of Khetri nor is a social worker and is a resident of Singhania and is a partner of Vinod Videos. Allegations and counter allegations have been made. It has also been submitted that the Cinema was started on 14. 05. 1977 and the licensing authorities have complied with the provisions of law. The Cinema was started on 14th May,1977, whereas the school came into existence at a later date on 26. 06. 1979. It has also been submitted that the distance of the cinema building has to be measured from the centre of the school building and the distance is more than 200 meters. The petitioner has informed the licensing authority when the construction of the school building was going on and the Government has not taken any objection and the renewal of the licence is made regularly as due compliance of law was found by the licensing authority in respect of the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. It has been denied that there is any loud speaker out-side cinema building and attention has been drawn toward the affidavits (Annexures R. 4/19 to R. 4/22) of the neighbourers. It has also been informed that the building is in the perfect condition and wiring is also not defective as would be evident from the reports of the Inspector dated 21. 5. 1990 and that of the S. D. O. dated 12. 7. 1991. It has also been submitted that sufficient parking place has been left in accordance with law and that the petition has been filed after 12 years and on this grounds, it is liable to be dismissed. Since the petition has also been submitted that Annexures A/1 and A/8 are the forged documents as would be evident from Annexures R. 4/6 and R. 4/15 and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be directed to be taken against the petitioner for submitting false documents.

(3.) FROM the record produced before this court, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition, which has been claimed to have been filed in public interest. The various contraventions as alleged above are not borne to be proved. It is also a fact that in the present matter, the school building was not even in existence at the time when the licence was granted to the cinema and, therefore, by subsequent construction of the school, the grievance that the provisions of Rule 16 are violated, is not justified. The interest of the Video Center owner and the cinema owners is clashing each other and, therefore, this petition has been filed showing it to be a public interest litigation. No reasons have been explained as to why the petition has been filed at such a belated stage of more than 12 years. The reason could be obvious that merely at that time Video Centers were not operating and this is a recent development of the science. The only thing which could be observed is that during the school hours, if any record is played on the loud speaker so that noise may come out-side the cinema building, then it will not be proper to allow the same as it may create interference in the studies of the students.