Back
2000 Supreme(Mad) 621
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. SATHASIVAM
V. Thavamani Ammal
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Govt. rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Madurui Dist
W.P. No. 16071 of 1993 & WMP. Nos. 24916 & 24917 of 1993
Decided On :Decided on: 30-06-2000
V. Perumal for Mr. R. Arunagirinathan for Petitioner.
S. Gopinathan, Govt., Advocate for Respondents.
The court emphasized the importance of clear evidence and due process in decision-making, especially when ordering significant alterations to existing structures.
Headnote:
Cinema Theatre - Construction of Cinema Theatre - Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1955 - Rule 61(9) - Rule 60(2) - Rule 61 - G.O..(D)No. 55. Home (Cin. 1) Department - 24.12.1982 - 27.8.86 - 1.8.87 to 31.7.88 - 2.8.88 to 8.7.89 - 28.11.88 - 16.2.93 - 1990 - Inspection and Report by District Collector - Quashing of Impugned Order
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner constructed a permanent A/c Cinema Theatre and obtained necessary permissions and licenses. The second respondent approved the plan and renewed the license periodically. The first respondent ordered alterations based on a report by the District Collector, which the petitioner challenged in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and directed the District Collector to inspect the theatre with a competent Civil/Structural Engineer and submit a fresh report to the Government.
Issues: Compliance with building regulations, validity of the District Collector's report, and the authority's decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order was quashed due to lack of clear evidence supporting the District Collector's report and the decision-making process. The court directed a fresh inspection with the assistance of a competent Civil/Structural Engineer.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent mentioned, with no costs, and all the miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. The above writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent in G.O..(D)No. 55. Home (Cin. 1) Department dated 16.2.1993.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:—The petitioner has constructed a permanent A/c Cinema Theatre at K. Pudhur, Madurai District in the year 1986. The cinema theatre consists of ground floor and first floor. The petitioner has obtained necessary permission from various authorities for the exhibition of cinema film. He has also submitted a plan for approval before second respondent and the same was approved by him on 24.12.1982. Again, he has submitted a plan for some modification and the same was approved by the second respondent on 27.8.86. The petitioner has obtained the “C” Form licence from the second respondent on 27.8.86 without any conditions. The licence was valid from 27.8.86 to 31.7.87 (sic).
Again the second respondent has renewed the “C” Form licence from 1.8.87 to 31.7.88 and from 2.8.88 to 8.7.89. It is further stated that the total seating capacity in the first floor was 224. For that purpose, the petitioner has constructed two stair case according to Rule 61 (9) of Tamil Nadu cinemas Regulation Rules, 1955 (in short “the Rules”). While so, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to remove the circular type stair case and the width of the door should be 1.5 metre instead of 1.35 metre. The second respondent has also renewed the licence from 1.8.88 to 8.7.89. On 28.11.88 the petitioner has submitted a petition for exemption from rule 60(2) and 61(9) of the Rules. Again the second respondent has renewed the licence on various subsequent dates without any condition. On 1 6.2.93 the first respondent has passed an order stating that defects can be rectified without affecting the structural soundness of the building and also with huge expenditure. The first respondent has requested the second respondent to give six months time to carryout the alterations and thereby rejected the exemption petition filed by the petitioners manager, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.
4. As per the impugned order, the petitioner has to carry out the following alterations:—
i) The width of the order of the theatre should be widened to 1.5 metre instead of 1.35 metre; and ii) Circular type staircase have to be removed and new staircase has to be constructed as per Rule 61
(9) of the Rules.
5. Even at the outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no grievance with regard to compliance of the first condition, hence it is unnecessary to consider the same. As regards second condition, namely, removal of circular type staircase, since the petitioner theatre consists of ground and first floor, she has to construct two staircases to provide access to gallery or upper floor. It is not disputed that after obtaining necessary permission from various authorities for exhibition of cinema film, the plan submitted by the petitioner was approved by the second respondent even on 24.12.82. The said plan was modified to some extent and the same was also approved by the second respondent on 27.8.86. She also obtained “C” Form licence from the second respondent on the same day without any condition. It is also not disputed that the “C” Form licence was renewed periodically without any condition. I have already stated that the second respondent granted permission and approved the plan to exhibit cinema film even in the year 1982. In other words, the circular type staircase which was constructed in the year 1982 was approved by the second respondent with some modifications and “C” Form licence was being renewed periodically. Only in the year 1990 in the application made by the Manager of the petition theatre on the basis of the report of the Collector, Madurai, first respondent has passed the impugned order declining to exempt from Rule 61(9) o
