Rajamannar, C.J.-These two appeals arise from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., disposing of two Writ Petitions, Nos. 179 and 196 of 1956. The only question involved in these appeals is the construction of one of the rules framed under the Madras Places of Public Resort Act and its applicability to the facts of this case. The appellant and the contesting first respondent (who will be referred to as the respondent) are proprietors of two rival touring talkies. Rule 18(a) of the aforesaid rules runs thus:

“No license shall be granted under the Act for the use of any temporary building for public resort sor entertainment unless-

(a) the building is provided on all its sides with an open space which in no part thereof shall be less than 50 yards in width:

Provided that the licensing authority with the sanction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate, or the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate if he is himself the licensing authority, may grant a licence for any such building with an open space of not less than 20 yards in width.”

Apparently both of them were anxious to obtain a license for a tourning talkie in the village of Avadathur, within the limits of the Jalakantapuram Panchayat Board in the Salem District, and both of them were not able to have any place for running a touring talkie which had an open space not less than fifty yards in width on all sides. Both of them, therefore, applied for an exemption relying upon the proviso to rule 18(a). The applications of both the appellant and the respondent were granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. Then both of them applied to the Taluk Magistrate, for grant of a licence under section 7 of the Act. The appellant was granted a licence. The respondent filed an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. But his appeal was dismissed. Thereupon the respondent filed two writ petitions, one to quash the order granting to the appellant the licence; and another to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting the appellant exemption under Rule 18(a) proviso. Both these writ petitions were heard by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., together, and the learned Judge set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting to the appellant exemption under Rule 18(a) and its proviso, and in consequence also set aside the order granting him the license under the Act. Hence these appeals by the appellant.

The ground on which Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., set aside the orders, and in particular the order granting exemption to the appellant under rule 18(a) proviso was that there were 7 or 8 cocoanut trees within forty feet of the auditorium and the existence of trees, be the number small or great, and whatever be their distribution in the space, negatives the place around being an “open space” within Rule 18(a).

We may say at the outset that there is no mention in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting the exemption, of any trees in the compound of the proposed tourning talkie of the appellant. This information was obtained by the learned Judge apparently from the report of the Tahsildar which was called for by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the application made by the appellant. All that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer says is that the Tahsildar’s report shows that the conditions specified for the grant of the exemption certificates under Rule 18(a) of the rules framed under the Places of Public Resort Act are satisfied and the Tahsildar has recommended the grant of the exemption We have our doubts if in such circumstances it is open to this Court in exercise of the power conferred on this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution to quash and set aside an order of an administrative tribunal like the Revenue Divisional Officer on an error which really is not apparent on the face of the order itself It may be that in the case of speaking orders, that is, orders which contain on their very face errors which affect the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document