SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(AP) 272

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.L.N.SHARMA, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
A.Josephine - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., Home (Gen.) Dept., rep.by its Secretary, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-16-93

The deeming provision in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, applies only to applications which comply with all statutory requirements.

Headnote:

A. P. CINEMA (REGULATION) RULES, 1970 - RULE 9 (2) (B) - DEEMING PROVISION - APPLICABILITY - INCOMPLETE OR DEFECTIVE APPLICATIONS - APPLICATIONS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH OR CONTRAVENE ANY PROVISION OF LAW - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The issue before the court was whether the deeming provision contained in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, would be operative to incomplete or defective applications or applications which do not comply with or contravene any provision of law which is otherwise applicable or whether such deeming provision would apply only to complete applications which do not contravene any other provision to the governing statute and the Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the deeming provision contained in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, applies only to applications which comply with all statutory requirements and not to all applications however incomplete or defective or non-conforming to the legal requirements they are.

Issues: Whether the deeming provision contained in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, would be operative to incomplete or defective applications or applications which do not comply with or contravene any provision of law which is otherwise applicable or whether such deeming provision would apply only to complete applications which do not contravene any other provision to the governing statute and the Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the deeming provision in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, to apply only to applications which comply with all statutory requirements. The court reasoned that the purpose of the deeming provision was to ensure that applications are processed in a timely manner and that applicants are not at the mercy of the licensing authority. However, the court held that the deeming provision cannot be used to circumvent the requirements of the law. If an application is incomplete, defective, or non-conforming to the legal requirements, the licensing authority is not required to grant permission for the construction or reconstruction of a cinema theatre.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single judge. The court also issued a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order.

SIVARAMAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) THERE is an apparent conflict between the views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in relation to the effect of Rule 9 (b) of A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970. The view expressed in Sri Satya Cine Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Govt. of A. P. and others by a Division Bench was that:"even if some rule is not complied with which needs to be complied with before making of an applicaction for permission to construct a cinema theatre and the application is also not rejected within a period of ninety days still under the circumstances the second proviso accords grant of deemed permission to the applicant. As such, subsequent to the working out of the second proviso, if it is found that the application is in violation of a certain rule and hence the deemed permission cannot be accepted then it amounts to nullifying the very proviso incorporated through the G. O. dated 16-6-1978. Therefore, contravention or violation of certain rules which ought to have been complied with before grant of permission cannot be a reason for non-acceptance of the deemed permission under the incorporated proviso. "in M/s. Venkateswara Talkies vs. Govt, of A. P. and others a Division Bench of this court to which one of us (Sivaraman Nair, J.) was a member, held that:"we are, of the opinion that the deeming provision in Rule 9 (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, can apply only to applications which comply with all statutory requirements and not to all applications however incomplete or defective or non-conforming to the legal requirements they are. To hold otherwise will be to extend the statutory fiction to cover illegalities as well, as has happened in this case. "in a still later decision reported in Aditya Constructions vs. Govt. of A. P. another Division Bench of this Court dealing with the provision to Section 437 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, held that the deeming provision applies to complete valid applications and not otherwise.

( 2 ) IN view of the conflict of opinions of the Division Benches on the effect of deeming provision, we feel it advisible that the point is decided by a larger Bench of this Court.

( 3 ) REGISTRAR (Judl.) will take orders from the Hon. Chief Justice to place the matter before a Full Bench for resolving the question of law as to : Whether deeming provision contained in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A. P. Cinema (Regulation) rules, 1970 will be operative to incomplete or defective applications or applications which do not comply with or contravene any provision of law which is otherwise applicable OR whether such deeming provision will apply only to complete applications which do not contravene any other provision to the governing statute and the Rules or Bye-Laws made thereunder. This Appeal coming on for hearing finally before the Full Bench the Court delivered the following.

( 4 ) ORIGINAL writ petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal. Writ petition itself was filed to call for the records relating to the grant of permission for the construction of a permanent theatre in T. S. No. l802/a, Ward No. 16 of narasaraopet, Guntur District and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ.

( 5 ) RELEVANT facts culminating in the filing of the writ appeal are as follows: original third respondent in the writ petition filed an application before the second respondent on 4-5-1982 for permission to construct a permanent Cinema threatre in T. S. No. l802/a, Ward No. 16 of Narasaraopet Municipality, Guntur district under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (herein after referred to as "the Rules" ). The said application was objected to by the writ petitioner on the ground that the site falls within the residential zone as per the Zoning Regulations and therefore, the construction of Cinema threatre is prohibited and if the permission for construction of a permanent cinema theatre is granted, it wil


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top