Back
1976 Supreme(AP) 85
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, V.MADHAVA RAO
S.Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
Pull Vlraraghavaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-76
The government has the power to grant exemption from the distance rule under the Andhra Pradesh Cinema Regulation Act, 1955, if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so.
Headnote:
CINEMA REGULATION ACT - EXEMPTION FROM DISTANCE RULE - REASONABLE GROUNDS - PUBLIC INTEREST - LOCUS STANDI - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of a permanent cinema theatre, challenged the grant of exemption from the distance rule to the first respondent, who was granted permission to construct a temporary cinema theatre in the same village. The petitioner contended that the exemption was granted without considering the interests of the permanent cinema owners and that the grounds for exemption were not reasonable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition as the grant of exemption affected his rights as a permanent cinema owner. The court further held that the government had the power to grant exemption suo motu and that the grounds for exemption were reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The court also held that the grant of exemption was not against public interest as it would provide additional entertainment facilities to the public.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition? 2. Whether the government had the power to grant exemption suo motu? 3. Whether the grounds for exemption were reasonable? 4. Whether the grant of exemption was against public interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition as the grant of exemption affected his rights as a permanent cinema owner. 2. The government had the power to grant exemption suo motu. 3. The grounds for exemption were reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 4. The grant of exemption was not against public interest as it would provide additional entertainment facilities to the public.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No 477/76 claims to be the proprietor of a permanent cinema theatre, Sri Seetharama talkies in Kuchipudi, Krishna District. (In this Judgment the array of parties will be referred to as in this writ petition.) One, Ranga Rao who is the petitioner in W. P. No. 6332/75 applied to the District Collector, Krishna on 6-10-1973 for permission to construct a temporary cinema theatre at Pedapudl village. On 15-10-1973, the first respondent also applied for permission to construct a temporary theatre at another site in the same village. The application of Rangarao was rejected and the application of the first respondent was ordered by two separate orders made on the 30th March, 1974. Rangarao preferred an appeal to the Government against the order rejecting his application As no appeal is provided under the Act against an order allowing the application of a competitor he filed W. P 20i6//4 in this court challenging the order granting permission to the first respondent. This was dismissed in liminl on the 12th april, 1974. He preferred W. A. 353/74 against this order. It was dismissed on the 19th April, 1974. This court observed that it was for the Government to decide whether the application for construction of a temporary theatre should be granted or not. Rangarao then filed an application to the Government and applied for stay of operation of the order granting permission to the Petitioner. This application was dismissed on 24th April, 1974.
( 2 ) AS against this order, Rangarao filed w. P. 2514774 and applied for stay before this court, interim stav was granted on 1-5-74 The first respondent thereupon moved to have the interim stay vacated. This court heard the main writ petition itself on 20-6-76. it was observed that if Ranga Rao were to succeed in the appeal the permission granted to the first respondent would fall to the ground and if the appeal was dismissed no prejudice would be caused to him and the first respondent would be entitled to proceed with the construction. This court therefore dismissed the writ petition but directed the Government to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of rejection of the application for permission to construct a temporary theatre, as early as possible. It is the case of the first respondent that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition he proceeded with the construction of the permanent theatre. On 7-10-1974 he applied for a licence to run the talkies in form B as required by the Andhra pradesh Cinema Regulation Act (In this judgment referred to as the Act ). At this stage, the petitioner who, as has already been stated, is the owner of a permanent cinema at Kuchipudi village, filed W. P. 5828/74 on 16-10-1974 praying for the Issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dt. 30-3-1974 granting permission to the first respondent to construct a temporary cinema. His main contention was that the distance between the proposed site for the temporary cinema by the first respondent and the permanent cinema of the petitioner was only 450 metres and as Under rule 7 (2) (c) of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) rules (in this Judgment referred to as the rules), the distance should not be less than 1000 metres, the permission granted was contrary to the rules. This court by an order dt. 3-2-1975 allowed the writ petition and the order dt. 30-3-1974 granting permission to the first respondent was quashed. Meanwhile on 18-1-1975 the Collector appears to have realised that as the distance was less than 1000 metres permission ought not to have been granted to the first respondent in view of rule 7 (2) (c ). As this was not noticed at the time of granting permission he addressed the Government that under Sec. 12 of the Act exemption may be granted from the operation of rule 7 (2) (c) in favour of the first respondent. Accepting this suggestion the Government issued G. O. Rt. 154 Home (Geni. A) dt. 27-1-1975 granti
