Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY C.J.I., M.H. BEG, R.S. SARKARIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai, Appellant
Versus
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and other, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2035 of 1971
Decided on 19-12-1975*
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocates, (Mrs. S. Gopalkrishnan, Advocate with him), for Appellant;. Mr. Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta, Advocates, (for Nos. 1-2) and Mr. G. A. Shah and M/s. M. N. Shroff and Girish Chandra Advocates, (for Nos. 3-4). for Respondents.
Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 – Rule 6, 3 –Certificate - Defect of jurisdiction - Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a "No-Objection Certificate , granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules) by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave – In response thereto, several persons lodged objections, but the appellants who are the proprietors of a cinema house, situated on Station Road, Mehmadabad, were not among those objectors – Some of the objections were that a Muslim graveyard, a Durgah, a composed depot, a school and public latrines were situated in the vicinity of the proposed site – Held, In response thereto, several persons lodged objections, but the appellants who are the proprietors of a cinema house, situated on Station Road, Mehmadabad, were not among those objectors – Some of the objections were that a Muslim graveyard a composed depot, a school and public latrines were situated in the vicinity of the proposed site – Appearing for the appellant, assails the finding of the High Court in regard to the locus standi of the appellant to maintain the writ petition – Burden of his arguments is that apart from a right in common with the general public to object to the grant before the District Magistrate, the appellant was a rival in the same trade and, as such, had a particular interest to see that permission was not granted to another, in contravention of law, to start the same business; consequently the illegal grant of the No-Objection Certificate had prejudicially affected the commercial interest of the appellant who stood in the category of an aggrieved person entitled to a writ of certiorari ex debito justitiae – It is submitted that so far as certiorari is concerned, the concept of aggrieved person is very wide and is not confined to a person who is grieved by an invasion of a legal right vested in him – Anyone - says - who is personally interested and genuinely grieved by an act of usurpation of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction on the part of an administrative tribunal or body, would fall within the category of an aggrieved person , even if 581 such usurpation or lack of jurisdiction had not resulted in infringement of a legal right or legal interest vested in him; nor would such a person be denied locus standi for the purpose of cetiorari merely because he had not lodged any objection or joined the proceedings before the tribunal (District Magistrate, in the present case) – In these premises, it is maintained, the High Court was not justified in denying the remedy of certiorari to the appellant – Writ petition is Dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The main issue is whether a proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a license can invoke the certiorari jurisdiction to challenge the grant of a "No-Objection Certificate" issued under the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954, on the grounds of jurisdictional defect (!) (!) .
The appellant, a cinema proprietor, did not participate in the objections lodged against the site for the proposed cinema, which included concerns about nearby facilities like a graveyard, a Durgah, a depot, a school, and latrines (!) .
The appellant argued that, apart from the general public’s right to object, as a rival in the same trade, he had a particular interest in preventing the issuance of the certificate, which prejudiced his commercial interests (!) .
The court clarified that the concept of "aggrieved person" is broad but must be interpreted in the context of the statutory scheme. Generally, a person must have a legal right or a recognized legal interest that has been infringed or affected to have standing (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that for the specific legislation involved, which regulates private business rights, the threshold for standing is strict. The appellant did not have a legal right under the statute or law that was infringed, as he did not lodge objections or participate in proceedings (!) (!) .
The appellant’s interest was purely commercial and competitive, which is considered damnum sine injuria—loss or harm that is lawful and not a legal injury. Therefore, such harm does not confer standing to challenge administrative decisions (!) (!) .
The court held that the appellant was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of the relevant legal provisions and thus lacked locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction necessitates strict adherence to the standing requirement to prevent frivolous or unwarranted claims, ensuring that only those with a genuine legal interest can seek judicial review (!) .
The decision underscores that in cases involving regulation of private rights, mere commercial rivalry or economic interest does not constitute a sufficient legal interest to invoke judicial review proceedings (!) .
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant did not have the requisite standing to challenge the grant of the No-Objection Certificate (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Sarkarai, J.
Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a "No-Objection Certificate', granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules) by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave.
2. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows :
Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of a site, bearing Survey No. 98 in the town of Mehmadabad. They made an application under R. 3 of the Rules to District Magistrate, Kaira, for the grant of a Certificate that there was no objection to the location of a cinema theatre at this site. The district Magistrate then notified in the prescribed form, the substance of the application by publication in newspapers, inviting objections to the grant of a No-Objection certificate. In response thereto, several persons lodged objections, but the appellants who are the proprietors of a cinema house, situated on Station Road, Mehmadabad, were not among those objectors. Some of the objections were that a Muslim graveyard, a Durgah, a composed depot, a school and public latrines were situated in the vicinity of the proposed site.
3. The District Magistrate (Res. 3 herein) invited the opinions of the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, and the District Superintendent of Police. These three authorities opined that they had no objection to the grant of the Certificate applied for. The District Magistrate visited the site on 27-7-1970. Thereafter he submitted a report to the State Government (Res. 4) that the proposed site was not fit for the location of a cinema house. He recommended that the 'No-Objection Certificate' should be refused. The State Government did not agree with the recommendation of the District Magistrate and directed the latter to grant the Certificate. Accordingly, the District Magistrate granted the 'No-Objection Certificate' on 27-11-1970 to Res. 1 and 2.
4. On 16-12-1970, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to treat the No-Objection Certificate granted to Respondents 1 and 2 as illegal, void and ineffectual. They further asked for an injunction restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from utilising the certificate for the purpose of building a cinema theatre.
5. The main grounds of challenge were: that the impugned Certificate had been issued by the District Magistrate, not in the exercise of his own discretion, with due regard to the principles indicated in the Bombay Cinemas Regn. Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) and the Rules, but mechanically at the dictates of the State Government; that Rr. 5 and 6, according to an earlier judgment of the High Court being ultra vires and void, the Government had no power to grant or refuse the No-Objection Certificate; that such power belonged to the District Magistrate who was the Licensing Authority, and had to be exercised by him objectively, in a quasi-judicial manner in accordance with the statutory principles; since it was not so exercised, the grant of the Certificate in question suffer from lack of jurisdiction.
6. In the affidavit filed in reply, by the District Magistrate (on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4), preliminary objection was taken that the appellants had no locus standi to file the writ petition because their rights were not in any manner affected by the grant of the 'No-objection Certificate'. It was stated that the deponent had reported the case and submitted the records to the State Government under R. 5, recommending that on account of the location of a graveyard, a church, a temple, a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
