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

1970 Supreme(Mad) 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE P. Ramakrishnan and MR.JUSTICE S. Maharajan.
S.P. Shanmugham Chettiar, Managing Director, Jai Hind Talkies (Paramakudi) Private Ltd., Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District
Versus
P. S. Somasundaram
W.A. No. 472 of 1969.
Decided On : 12 January 1970

Advocates:
K. Parasaran, for Appellant.
V.K. Thiruvenkatachari for M/s. T.N. Ananthanayaki and K.N.S. Srinivasan, for 1st Respondent.
D. Raja, for Government Pleader, for Respondents 2 and 3.

Section 11 can be interpreted as expressing a state of affairs which will include future as well as present.

Headnote:Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act (IX of 1955), sec. 11---It can be interpreted as expressing a state of affairs which will include future as well as present.

       

Ramakrishnan, J.- The Writ appellant, S. P. Shanmugham Chettiar, is the proprietor of Jai Hind Talkies and Ravi Theatres in Paramakudi. The first respondent, Somasundaram, wanted to put up a temporary cinema in S. No. 16, Kattuparamakudi, situated in the main bazaar street, Paramakudi Town. This site selected by him is two furlongs from Ravi Theatres and four furlongs from Jai Hind Talkies. Rule 14 (2) of the rules framed under the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act states that a touring cinema shall not be allowed within a distance of 1.606 kms. (1 mile) of the nearest permanent cinema located in the same local area or in the adjacent village, panchayat or town or in the city of Madras. ‘Local area’ for this purpose is defined as ‘the area within the jurisdiction of a municipal council or panchayat board or revenue village.' Section 11 of the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act (Madras Act IX of 1955) gives power to the State Government, by order in writing to exempt, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they may impose, any cinematograph exhibition or class of cinematograph exhibitions, or any place where a cinematograph exhibition is given, from any of the provisions of that Act or of any of the rules made thereunder. The first respondent applied to the local government and got exemption from the rule about minimum distance granted to him by it under the power aforesaid. He did so even before he applied for the licence for his touring cinema and even before applying for a ‘No objection‘ certificate. But for such exemption, the rule of minimum distance under rule 14 (2) above, would have become applicable to him and it would have automatically prevented him from locating his cinema in the site above mentioned. At this stage, Shanmugham Chettiar, proprietor of the permanent Theatre abovementioned applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O.Ms. No. 363 dated 13th June, 1969, granting exemption to Somasundaram in respect of the site abovementioned. The learned Judge, Ramaprasada Rao, J., considered in detail the several grounds relied on by the Petitioner for his relief and negatived them. He dismissed the writ petition. Shanmugham Chettiar has filed this appeal under the Letters Patent. The first question urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner turns on a very small point and can be disposed of easily. He refers to the clause “cinematograph exhibition is given” found in section 11 of the Act. According to him, the words “is given” imply that before exemption is granted, the touring cinemas should have actually commenced exhibiting pictures in the place. According to him, the words ‘is given’ must be given their grammatical meaning in the present continuous tense. The learned Judge was of the opinion that there was no substance in this objection. We are inclined to agree. In our opinion, the context of section 11 as well as practical exigencies, would make it clear that the words ‘is given’ must be construed only as the draftsman’s device of expressing a state of affairs which will include the future as well as the present tense. The words can also be considered as conveying the meaning in the future tense, proposed ‘to be given. ‘It is very unlikely that any cinema proprietor would start giving the exhibitions in a site which is objectionable from the point of view of rule 14 (2), and take the risk of applying to get exemption afterwards, or face a prosecution if he fails to get such exemption. In practice, one can visualise that intending operators will apply and try to get exemption in advance of commencing actual exhibition. It is also well known that words on a statute used in the present tense can also be used to convey the meaning in the future tense, depending on the context in which they occur in the statute. Our view as stated above, is supported by a Bench of this Co
















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