1967 Supreme(Goa) 10

Goa High Court
R. S. BINDRA
Tajdin Javerbhai Mavany - Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu - Respondent
Decided On : 04/29/1967

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 - RULES FORMULATED UNDER THE ACT - VALIDITY OF ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PERMANENT LICENCE - WHETHER THE ORDER IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE - WHETHER THE LICENSING AUTHORITY IS BOUND IN LAW TO ACT JUDICIALLY WHILE DEALING WITH LICENCE APPLICATIONS - WHETHER RULE 15 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ACTED MALA FIDE IN THE MATTER OF DEALING WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners moved the appropriate authorities for permission to erect a cinema building at Curchorem in the year 1956. The permission was granted on 18th of October 1957 and the building was completed by the middle of 1959. It was on 3rd of July 1959 that the Municipal Committee of Quepem passed a resolution allowing the petitioners to use the building as a cinema house. The licence to that effect was issued in favour of the petitioners on 14th of December, 1959. It was sometime in the year 1960 that the petitioners began to exhibit films in their cinema at Curchorem. Soon after the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enforced in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory promulgated on 29th of July 1965 a set of rules (hereinafter called the Rules) formulated under the Act. The Rules necessitated submission of applications for grant of licences for running the cinemas which were in existence before the promulgation of the Rules. Consequently the petitioners made an application on 19th of September 1965 to the District Magistrate, Goa, for the grant of permanent licence. On 19th July, 1966. The Dist. Magistrate wrote the following letter to Shri Mavany. “With reference to your application dated 19-9-1965 on the subject noted above, I have to inform you that the Licence for Permanent Cinema viz. Cine Niagara, cannot be granted for the following reasons : 1. There is no public thoroughfare as required by Rule 22(i). 2. No adequate number of latrines and urinals are provided as required by rule 74. 3. Angle of elevation is more than is permitted by rule 82 (2). 4. The operator is not holding a licence.. Rule 68 (1). 5. Taking into consideration the population of the village Curchorem, no licence for two permanent cinemas can be granted. The temporary permit granted to you is valid upto 31st July 1966. You should therefore close your Cine Niagara with effect from 1st August 1966, positively.”

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned order is purely administrative and as such it cannot be assailed on the footing that before it was made no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to make representation in respect of points 4 and 5 mentioned therein. The Court also held that the challenge to the validity of Rule 15 on the basis of Art, 14 has been found to be unsustainable. The Court further held that the letter Exh. 8 sent by Shri Rane to the District Magistrate proves beyond doubt that the Government has taken a decision in terms of Rule 15 that only one permanent cinema can be licensed for Curchorem. The licensing authority was justified in taking into consideration that decision of the Government while disposing of the application made by the petitioners. The Court also held that the data on the record also reveals that the building of the petitioners does not abut on public thoroughfare. The plan attached to the letter Exh. 6 written by the Director of Land Survey at Panjim to the District Magistrate of Goa shows that the road bearing no. 590A running on the east and south of Cine Niagara is private ownership and as such not a public thoroughfare. The Court also held that the petitioners' allegation in para 9 of the petition in regard to the existence of the public thoroughfare is altogether vague. Hence the plan attached to Exh. 6 coupled with the affidavit of the District Magistrate can safely be relied upon in support of the respondents' contention that the petitioner's cinema building has no access from public thoroughfare Rule 22 lays down that no licence shall be granted under the Act in respect of any building unless such building has a road frontage on the public thoroughfare upon which the site of such building abuts. The District Magistrate had no alternative but to reject the application for licence in view of the stringent provisions of Rule 22 (i).

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order is quasi-judicial in nature? 2. Whether the licensing authority is bound in law to act judicially while dealing with licence applications? 3. Whether Rule 15 is unconstitutional? 4. Whether the Government acted mala fide in the matter of dealing with the application of the petitioners?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order is purely administrative and as such it cannot be assailed on the footing that before it was made no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to make representation in respect of points 4 and 5 mentioned therein. 2. The Court held that the licensing authority is not bound in law to act judicially while dealing with licence applications. 3. The Court held that the challenge to the validity of Rule 15 on the basis of Art, 14 has been found to be unsustainable. 4. The Court held that the letter Exh. 8 sent by Shri Rane to the District Magistrate proves beyond doubt that the Government has taken a decision in terms of Rule 15 that only one permanent cinema can be licensed for Curchorem. The licensing authority was justified in taking into consideration that decision of the Government while disposing of the application made by the petitioners.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.