( 1 ) THE petitioner applied for the grant of touring cinema licence under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act 1964, hereinafter referred, to as the Act, read with the) Karnataka Cinemas Regulation) Rules 1971, hereinafter reterred to as the Rules. UK Dist, Magistrate, Mysore Dist, who is the licensing authority granted a No Objection Certificat i in respect of an area measuring 150' x 150' comprised in S. No. 60 at Eranagere village, mysore Taluk, the boundaries of which have been specified in the No Objection certificate granted as per Ex. A. Thereafter, the licensing authority granted a licence on the 28th of August 1974 for a period of one month from 30th August 1974 to 29th of September 1974.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT 2 challenged the grant of No Objection Certificate and the licence before the Stats Govt under S. 18 of the Act. The State Govt in exercise of its revisional powers under S. 18, set aside the, No Objection certificate and the licence granted in favour of the petitioner by its, order dt. 19th March 1975, produced in the case as Ext. D. It is the said order that is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has continued the exhibition of cinematograph films on the strength of the stay order obtained by him, which in turn enabled him to obtain renewal of the licence subject to ths final decision in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE; aforesaid facts make it abundantly clear that though the licence was granted to the petitioner for a period of one month, he has ty now exhibited shows for nearly eleven months.

( 4 ) IT was contended by Sri R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the state Govt committed an error apparent on the face of the record in interfering with the No Objection Certificate granted by the licensing authority.

( 5 ) THE Statq Govt has taken the view that the No Objection Certificate and the licence are liable to be set aside inasmuch as the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 96 and Rule 107 of the Rules, have been violated.

( 6 ) SUB-RULE (1) of Rule 96 requires the licensing authority, on receipt of an application under Rule 90, to notify at the cost of the applicant, the public of such indention by publication in at least two local newspapers (in the regional language) having largest circulation in the area and also by such other methods as it deems fit, inviting objections. The notice has to bq in Form C and the perioid within which objections to be sent to the licensing authority should be fifteen days from the date of publication of abe noftice. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96 requires the licensing authority to direct thci applicant to put up a notice in the English language and also in the regional language in Form B in this behalf on a board on the proposed site in such a position "thait it can be plainly seen from the public thoroughfare. The notice on the board should be on display until the application for licence is decided by the licensing authority. The board has to be of ^ prescribed dimensions and notice has to be in bold and clearly legible letters. The sub-rule further provides that before further action is taken on the application for grant or otherwise of the No Objection Certificate, the licensing authority should satisfy himslf by personal inspection or otherwise that these requirements have b-en complied with by the applicant.

( 7 ) IT was maintained by Sri R. U. Goulay that the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 96, are not mandatory and that, therefore, substantial compliance with the said provisions is sufficient particularly when the duty to a large"extent is cast on the licensing authority to see that the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 96 of the Rules are complied with. So far as sub-rule (1) of Rule 96 is concerned, it was pointed out by sri R. U. Goulay that though publication has to be made in two local newspapers in this case admitflrdly publication has been made in o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document