Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3348
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Srenevassa Theatre rep. by its Proprietor R. Venkatanarayanan
Versus
The District Collector of Cuddalore
W.P.No.32497 of 2004 W.P.M.P.No.39368 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.1826 of 2006
Decided On : 25-10-2007
For the Petitioner:V. Ramajegadeesan, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Balakrishnan, AGP.
Adherence to safety regulations in theatre construction is crucial, and authorities are duty-bound to ensure compliance with statutory rules.
Headnote:
Cinema Theatre - Approval of Alteration - T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1957 Rule 53(1) - The judgment discusses the violation of rules under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, specifically Rule 53(1) regarding open space and parking facility requirements. The court's decision is based on the meticulous inspection reports and the impugned order issued by the authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a cinema theatre, applied for approval of alteration due to lack of profit. Despite favorable reports, the application was not approved. The authorities issued an impugned order directing the petitioner to demolish the ticket counter and provide necessary car parking outside the theatre premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the authorities are duty-bound to ensure safety regulations are not violated by theatre owners. The impugned order was based on meticulous inspections and the court found no reason to interfere.
Issues: Violation of rules under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, specifically Rule 53(1) regarding open space and parking facility requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the detailed inspection reports and the impugned order issued by the authorities, emphasizing the importance of adhering to safety regulations in theatre construction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
By consent, the main writ petition has been argued. The writ petitioner is a cinema theatre. It appears that it was not making profit and therefore, a portion of the theatre premises was carved out and shopping complex was put up on the western side. The petitioner states that an application was made to the respondent, who is the licensing authority on 27.05.1999 for approval of the alteration. There was a delay in disposing of the said application. Therefore, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.12652 of 2001 for consideration of the application. On 10.03.2004, the above writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders. So far, the respondent has not passed orders. On 25.05.2004, the respondent served a notice on the petitioner, directing the petitioner to explain why the car parking facility is not adequate, and also regarding the floor-space-index on the four sides of the theatre and some suggestion was received with regard to the placement of the ticket counter.
2. According to the petitioner, these suggestions were carried out and a revised plan was also submitted. Thereafter the respondent has issued the impugned order on 210. 2004 in Na.Ka.No.C1/44429/99, directing the petitioner to demolish the ticket counter and to provide for necessary car parking outside the theatre premises. Against that, this writ petition has been filed.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Sub Collector and the Superintending Engineer, PWD have given a favourable report and yet the modifications in construction made by the petitioner have not been sanctioned. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the District Collector cannot depute other officials to file a report, contrary to the earlier favourable reports.
4. At the time of admission, interim stay was granted, only with regard to penal action and yet till date, the petitioner has not complied with the instruction given in the impugned order. The impugned order reads as follows :
5. A detailed counter along with the reports has been filed. It is seen from that the Director of Town Planning had turned down the application of the petitioner for modification on the following grounds :
a) Rule 53 (1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1975 not satisfied, as 6.1 metres open space has not been provided in 3 sides.
b) Vehicle parking space not provided
c) Public buildings Rules 9, 12 and 13 satisfied.
and therefore, the former Collector, Cuddalore had inspected the theatre on 29.09.1998 and rejected the petitioner’s application. Thereafter, he again applied for permission on 24.06.1999 to exclude certain extent. In this regard, Rule 53(1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1957 is relevant, which reads as follows :
Rule 53(1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1957 says.
The building shall be provided on atleast three of its sides with an open space of not less than 6.10 metres in width or such greater width as may be required by licensing authority for parking the number of cars which would be normally attracted and for the purpose of the free movement of persons and for facilitating rescue operations in time of emergency. Provided that in the case of a building where the licensee has provided adequate parking space for cars either in the basement or ground floor over which the auditorium is located, or in the vicinity of the building, acceptable to the licensing authority, there shall be an open space of not less than 3.05 metres on all sides of the building except on the rear side, for the free movement of persons and to facilitate rescue operations in times of emergency.
6. This open space on three sides is necessary for free movement of the theater goers and to facilitate rescue operation in times of emergency. The licensee shall provide adequate parking space in the basement of the ground floor or in the vicinity in the building. After scrutinizing the proposal submitted by the licensee, the Superintending Engineer, PWD had reported
