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

1993 Supreme(Ker) 363

Judges : M.JAGANNADHA RAO,K.SREEDHARAN
Mohanan - Appellant
Versus
District Collector - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 453 of 1990
Decided On : 10/06/1993
Advocates Appeared :
A.X. Varghese; For Appellant P.C. Sasidharan; N. Sukumaran; M.C. John; For Respondents

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of R.28(2) of the Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1988, which clarified that the distance between cinemas should be measured along the public road, not as the crow flies.

Headnote:

Cinema Theatre - Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958 - R.28(2) of the Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1988 - The court discussed the interpretation of R.28(2) of the Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1988 made under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, specifically focusing on the measurement of distance between cinemas and the method of measurement as the crow flies or along the road.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, owner of a cinema theatre, challenged the permission granted to the third respondent for construction of a temporary cinema theatre, based on the distance between the two theatres as specified in R.28(2) of the Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1988.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the conflicting measurements of the distance between the theatres and the interpretation of relevant rules. It concluded that the distance between the theatres should be measured along the public road, not as the crow flies, and dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of R.28(2) of the Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1988, regarding the measurement of distance between cinemas and the method of measurement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the distance between cinemas should be measured along the public road, as per the relevant rules, to ensure that one theatre does not adversely affect the business of another theatre owner.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, as the court found no merit in the appellant's challenge to the permission granted to the third respondent for construction of a temporary cinema theatre.

Judgment :-

1. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner in O.P.No.6212 of 1990 against.the judgment rendered therein on 19-7-1990. By that judgment, the learned Single judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The appellant-writ petitioner is the owner of a cinema theatre namely 'Vinod Talkies' in Kenichira Panchayat, Wayanad District for the last 20 years and has a temporary licence duly renewed from time to time. The appellant-petitioner has questioned the permission granted to the third respondent by the Panchayat Board, Kenichira on 28-2-1989 for construction of a temporary cinema theatre, and for quashing the order, Ext.P2 dated 2-7-1990, of the District-Collector, Wayanad dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant.

2. It appears that the Special Executive Officer, Poothady Panchayat came to the conclusion that the distance between the appellant's temporary cinema theatre and the proposed theatre of the third respondent was beyond 800 metres. However, it appears that the Village Officer, Poothady, measured the distance as the crow flies, and came to the conclusion that the distance was 712 metres which come within the prohibited distance of 800 metres as specified in R.28(2) of the Cinema Regulation Rules, 1988 made under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958. The Collector in Revision filed under. S.5 of the Act dismissed the Revision under Ext.P2 order dated 2-7-1990. Of course he was of the view that the difference of 88 metres between the actual and prohibited distances did not matter, as the theatre was in a hilly area, and one theatre was not visible from the other, and therefore there was no question of any sound or other problem. He therefore stated that he is permitting the theatre to be completed, and the revision was dismissed. In the meantime, the third respondent had spent more than three lakhs of rupees and completed the construction of the theatre.

3. In this Writ Appeal, the only point for consideration is whether the finding of the Special Executive Officer, Poothady Panchayat, that the theatre is located beyond 800 metres is to be accepted or not or whether the finding of the Village Officer that the distance is 712 metres is to be accepted or not, having regard to the relevant rules made under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958.

4. It is common ground before us and it is accepted by all learned counsel appearing for the various parties that if the distance is measured along the road from the appellant's theatre to the third respondent's theatre, the distance is more than 800 metres, (834.85 metres) but that if the distance is measured as the crow flies, it is less than 800 metres (712 metres). The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the distance, in the light of the rules applicable to the facts, is to be measured as the crow flies, that is to say horizontally and not along the road. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon S.10 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 M.E. and contended that the measurement must be made as the row flies or in a straight line. The above Section corresponds to S.11 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In fact, this Wynad District being formerly a part of the Malappuram District falling under the Madras State, it is to be noted that the only Act that is applicable is the Madras Act and not the Kerala Act of 1125 ME.

5. R.28 of the Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1988 made under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958 reads as follows:

"28. Restrictions in respect of distance between cinemas shall be as specified below:

(1) There shall be no distance restriction between a permanent cinema and another permanent cinema whether they are situated in the jurisdiction of the same Licensing Authority or not.

(2) The distance between two temporary cinemas or one permanent cinema and a temporary cinema shall not be less than 800 metres provided that this distance restriction shall not apply to the case of

(a)


























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top