The Act and Rules did not require prior notice of inspection to the parties, and the principles of natural justice did not mandate prior notice. Only the applicant and those with special interest were entitled to an oral hearing.

( 1 ) ON a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) this case was posted before us for disposal.

( 2 ) ON 22-11-1982 respondent-2 made an application before the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the DM) for grant of a 'no objection Certificate' (Hereinafter referred to as the NOC) for running a touring cinema, a misnomer, for a 'non-permanent' or 'temporary' under Section 5 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) and Part IV of Chapter XII of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules ). On receipt of the said application, the DM under rule 96 of the Rules issued Notification No. MAG (2) TT 72/82-83 dt. 23-11-1982 inviting representations and objections to the same. In response to the notification, the petitioner and four others as members of public filed common objections (Annexure - A) opposing the grant of NOC to respondent 2 on the same day, one M. S. Shankaraiah who is running a touring cinema under the name and style of 'mahalaxmi Touring Talkies' in a nearby place filed objections opposing the grant of NOC to respondent 2. As required by the Rules, the DM also called for the views of the Director of Health and family Welfare; Commissioner of Police, Executive Engineer, PWD and Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. On 24-3-1983 the DM also sought the opinion of the Karnataka Housing Board, which by its letter dt. 29-4-1983 expressed its no objection for the grant of NOC. On 20-5-1983 the DM informed respondent 2 and the objectors that he would personally inspect the spot on 24-5-1983 at 11. 00 a. m. which is postponed to 28-6-1983. On 28-6-1983 the DM did not visit the spot and he visited the spot on 29-6-1983, according to the petitioner without notice to him, which we will assume it as correct, inspected the area and drew up his notes of inspection. At that inspection, respondent 2 who was naturally anxious to have his application considered with expedition was present.

( 3 ) ON the completion of that inspection, the DM directed the case to be posted for hearing on 20-9-1983 and in pursuance of the same, a notice of hearing addressed to respondent 2, the petitioner and other objectors was issued by the DM on 24-8-1983 which was not served on the petitioner. On 20-9-1983 the DM apparently without noticing the non-service of notice on the petitioner, called the case and recorded that none were present and posted the case to 30-9-1983 for orders. On 30-9-1983 the DM before passing orders heard respondent 2 and made an order on the same day granting an NOC to him (Annexure - D) and issued on NOC in the prescribed form on 4-10-1983. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 30-9-1983 of the DM (Annexure - D ).

( 4 ) AMONG others, the petitioner has urged that the order made by the DM without notice to him and affording him an opportunity of hearing was violative of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, he has urged that the inspection of the spot by the DM without notice to him was violative of the principles of natural justice and the decision rendered by him on such an inspection was illegal. Lastly, the petitioner has assailed the order on merits also.

( 5 ) IN his return, respondent 2 has justified the order made by the DM in his favour. He has asserted that the petitioner was the land-lord of Sri Shankaraiah who was running a touring cinema in the nearby area and that his house was situated beyond 1500 metres from the place for which the NOC has been granted to him. He has asserted that the petitioner has been egged to file this writ petition and is really fighting the cause of Shankaraiah who was only interested in preserving his business in the area to the detriment of the public. Lastly, he has asserted that the petitioner who was aware of the date and time of inspect