Back
1991 Supreme(Mad) 213
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BAKTHAVATSALAM
L. Sundararajan - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Others - Respondents
W. P. No. 3041 of 1991
Decided On : 08 March 1991
The owner of an existing cinema theatre does not have a legal right or legally protected interest that is subjected to or threatened with injury by the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' to a rival trader, and therefore cannot be considered an aggrieved person.
Headnote:
CINEMA REGULATION - NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE - GRANT - AGGRIEVED PERSON - OWNER OF EXISTING CINEMA THEATRE - LOCUS STANDI - TAMIL NADU CINEMAS (REGULATION) ACT, 1955 - RULES 101(2) AND 102 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 19(1)(G) AND ART. 226.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the owner of an existing touring cinema, challenged the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' to the fourth respondent to locate a touring cinema near his theatre, alleging that the site chosen by the fourth respondent did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 101(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules and was not suitable for cinema exhibition under Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner, as the owner of an existing cinema theatre, could not be said to be an aggrieved person by the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' in favor of the fourth respondent, as he had no legal right or legally protected interest that was subjected to or threatened with injury as a result of the grant. The court further held that the petitioner's objection that another theatre was not necessary in the locality was not a legal right or a legally protected interest, but rather a matter of commercial competition, which the law does not consider to be wrongful.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, as the owner of an existing cinema theatre, could be considered an aggrieved person by the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' to the fourth respondent? 2. Whether the site chosen by the fourth respondent satisfied the requirements of Rule 101(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules and was suitable for cinema exhibition under Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. T. Gowda and J. M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar to hold that an existing theatre owner does not have a legal right or legally protected interest that is subjected to or threatened with injury by the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' to a rival trader, and therefore cannot be considered an aggrieved person. 2. The court found that the Appellate Authority had considered all the objections of the petitioner and had found that the site chosen by the fourth respondent satisfied the requirements of Rule 101(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules and was suitable for cinema exhibition under Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the grant of the 'No Objection Certificate' and that, even on merits, the petition had no substance.
The petitioner challenges an order passed by the Government rejecting his revision petition and granting a "No Objection Certificate" to the fourth respondent to locate a touring cinema in S. No. 513 /1 (Part), 513 / 2 (part) and 517 (Part) of Avaniapuram Village, Madurai South Taluk.
2. Originally the fourth respondent applied to third respondent for the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' to locate a touring cinema in S. Nos. 513/1 (Part), 513/2 (Part) and 517 (Part) of Avaniapuram Village, Madurai South Taluk. That application was rejected. On appeal to the second respondent, the order of the third respondent (Collector) was set aside and the second respondent granted the 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the fourth respondent. Against that, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Government which has been rejected.
3. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he is the licensee of an existing touring cinema in Thirupparankundram and the site preferred by the fourth respondent for locating a touring cinema is very near the petitioner's theatre and is totally unfit for locating a cinema theatre. He also alleges that the site chosen by the fourth respondent is not connected by any public road and is not abutting a public thoroughfare as required by Rules 101 of the Cinema (Regulation) Rules. It is alleged that the orders of the first and the second respondents granting 'No Objection Certificate' to the fourth respondent are liable to be set aside solely on the ground that they have not considered the question of adequacy which was projected by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the question of adequacy is one of the relevant considerations which should be considered before granting the 'No Objection Certificate'. The petitioner further alleges that the site chosen by the fourth respondent does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 101 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules. According to the petitioner, apart from the fact that there is no public road leading to the site in question, the site also does not have a road frontage on the public thoroughfare upon which the site abuts. The further allegation made in the affidavit is that the site chosen by the fourth respondent is not suitable for cinema exhibition within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.
4. Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Government Order in G. O. Rt. No. 650 Home (Cinemas-B) Department, dated 27-2-l991 which is impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside on the ground that before granting the 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the fourth respondent, the respondents have not considered the aspect of adequacy. The learned counsel further states that the petitioner is an aggrieved person since he has got a right of appeal and revision under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and rules itself apart from the right to file objections. He further states that the grant of the 'No Objection Certificate' to the fourth respondent is in violation of the rules apart from the fact that the question of adequacy has not been considered by the appellate and the revisional authorities.
5. The question whether the petitioner as the owner of an existing touring cinema can be said to be an aggrieved person by the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the fourth respondent has to be decided.
6. On this question, I have taken the view while disposing of W. P. No. 11270 of 1987 by my order dated 9-4-1990. relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M. L. Krishna Murthy v. The District Revenue Officer, Vellore, N. A. District 1989 TLNJ 200 : 1990 AIR(Mad) 87, that the owner of an existing theatre cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Though this order of mine has been taken on appeal in W. A. No. 813 of 1990 (Marippan P. v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1990 WLR 339) the
