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

1955 Supreme(AP) 276

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Karnati Rangaiah - Appellant
Versus
A.Sultan Mohiddin and Bros., Tadipatri - Respondent
Decided On : 11-08-55

The State Government has the power to control the grant of licences by the District Magistrate under the Cinematograph Act, and this control extends to both general and particular instructions.

Headnote:

CINEMATOGRAPH ACT - LICENCE - GRANT OF - POWER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND STATE GOVERNMENT - CONTROL OF STATE GOVERNMENT - NOTICE TO EXISTING LICENSEES - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENCE - INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a proprietor of a theatre in Tadipatri, challenged the grant of a licence to the 1st respondent to exhibit cinema shows in a building that was previously used as a cinema house but was requisitioned by the Government during World War II and used as a godown. The appellant contended that the State Government had no power to direct the District Magistrate to issue a licence, that he should have been given notice before the licence was granted to the 1st respondent, and that the Government erred in interpreting its earlier orders regarding the terms and conditions for issuing licences to permanent cinemas.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State Government had the power to control the grant of licences by the District Magistrate and that this control extended to both general and particular instructions. The court also held that the appellant was not entitled to notice before the licence was granted to the 1st respondent and that the Government did not err in interpreting its earlier orders.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Government has the power to direct the District Magistrate to issue a licence under the Cinematograph Act? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to notice before the licence was granted to the 1st respondent? 3. Whether the Government erred in interpreting its earlier orders regarding the terms and conditions for issuing licences to permanent cinemas?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of control of the State Government over the grant of licences by the District Magistrate extends to both general and particular instructions. 2. The appellant was not entitled to notice before the licence was granted to the 1st respondent as there is no statutory provision for such notice and the grant of a licence to a new entrant does not affect the private rights or interests of existing licensees. 3. The Government did not err in interpreting its earlier orders as the building in question was constructed as a theatre long before 1950 and the Government has the power to issue directions at variance with its own prior G.Os. when such G.Os. do not constitute rules or regulations made under statutory authority.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal with costs.

BHIMASANKARAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the decision of our learned brother Umamaheswaram, J. , in W. P. No. 375 of 1955, declining to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restraining the District Magistrate, anantapur, from issuing a licence to the first respondent under section 4 of the cinematograph Act, II of 1918 (hereinafter called the Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts material for the determination of the questions of law raised before us are simple. The appellant is the proprietor of a theatre called " Vauhini Kala mandir " in the municipal town of Tadipatri. He has a licence under section 4 of the Cinematograph Act to exhibit cinema shows in that theatre. The 1st respondent purchased a building in 1949 in which cinematograph films were being exhibited upto the year 1940 under a licence till then in force. As a result of certain defects pointed out by the Executive Engineer such exhibition was stopped in the year 1940. But before the defects were rectified, the Government requisitioned the building and handed it over to a local Go-operative Stores which was using it as godown till the year 1953. The building was however vacated by the stores in that year and early in the year 1954, the ist respondent applied to the local District Magistrate for the issue of a licence under section 4 of the Act. As he received no reply, he presented a petition to the local Government on 29th May, 1954. The appellant who came to know of this filed a memo, dated 8th July, 1954, before the District Magistrate setting out his objections to the grant of a licence to the 1st respondent. The Government in G. O. R. No. 14, dated 12th January, 1955, passed the following Order :-"in the circumstances stated by the Collector of Anantapur in his letter, dated 3rd December, 1954, cited, the Government consider that a licence under the Cinematograph Act may be granted to the old theatre at Tadipatri belonging to Sri A. Sultan Mohiuddin and Brothers provided necessary repairs are carried out. The Collector is therefore requested to grant a reasonable time say three or four months to the management of the old theatre for carrying out the requisite repairs to bring the theatre upto the specification of the Cinematograph Rules. "

( 3 ) THEREUPON, the appellant filed a writ petition out of which this appeal arises for the relief above specified. He has impleaded the State Government as the 3rd respondent. Our learned brother dismissed the application, and the petitioner has come up in appeal before us. The main contentions of the appellant are three in number. In the first instance, he urges that, under the Act, the authority having power to grant licences is the District Magistrate and the local Government has no power to direct him to issue one, as they have purported to do in the above G. O. The material portion of the relevant sections are extracted below in order that this contention may be appreciated. "section 4 :- the authority having power to grant licences under this Act (hereinafter referred as the "licensing authority") shall be the District Magistrate. 5. (3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, and to the control of the (Provincial Government), the licensing authority may grant licences under this Act to such persons as it thinks fit, and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. "it is contended by the appellant that the power of control cannot be co-extensive with the power initially to grant a licence and that at any rate even assuming that the Government could direct the issue of a licence to a particular individual it could only do so after the District Magistrate had declined to grant one in the first instance. We cannot accept this contention. It is to be noticed that the statute expressly provides that the grant of licences by the licensing authority to such persons as it thinks fit, is subject to the control of the State Government. The power of control exten






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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