AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anantanarayanan, C.J.—In writ petition No. 490 of 1968 Ramakrishnan, J. declined to accept the short ground urged by the writ petitioner
(here appellant) that, in the absence of any statutory provision, the Government had no power to make rules for the renewals of cinematographic
licences. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that, if the argument is accepted, it would imply that rule 92 and the following rules,
embodied as ""Part VI -Renewals"", would be liable to be struck down as ultra vires; an even more paradoxical result would follow, that all
renewals would have to be declined for lack of a statutory basis. On the particular point, we think it is sufficient to observe that it could net have
been the intention of the Legislature, that there should be no renewals of a cinematographic licence. Obviously, that would be against the entire
policy of the administration of this area of public activities. Such a power to renew can be impliedly found in Section 10 (2) (a) of the Madras
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, for the Government are thereby specifically empowered to make rules for ""the terms, conditions and restrictions,
subject to which a licence may be granted under this Act"". Since one of the terms of the licence could very well be that the licence can be renewed,
if the manner in which the licence had been utilised by the licensee was satisfactory, the power to make rules for renewals could be derived, by
necessary implication, from this part of the statute itself. As we have already observed, such a power is essential in the public interest, since its
absence would mean that all the licences would come to an end by efflux of time, without any right of renewal of such licenses and thus continuity
of the business would be seriously impaired.
Learned counsel for the writ appellant points out that in analogous statutes, such as the General Sales Tax Act, there is a residual provision
section 19 (2) (1) enabling the State to make rules generally, with regard to matters pertinent to the subject, which might not have been earlier
specified in the section itself. This is certainly a wholesome and salutary precedent, and we think that he State would be well advised to take steps
to introduce a similar provision In the Cinematograph Act also. But, the absence of such a provision does not imply that the rule-making power Is
not there, with regard to renewals of licenses.
Another argument Is that, In this particular case, rule 92 was net complied with, because the licence was not sought to be renewed one month
prior to the date of its expiry, as provided by rule 92(1). This contention of an objector (writ appellant) is on the facts, and we do net find that it
has been referred to or discussed by the learned judge. With regard to the argument that the objector has a right to be heard on the question of
renewal of a licence, it is sufficient for as to note that he can always make a representation; it is entirely for the authorities to consider whether the
representation has any substance, or the existing license should be normally renewed. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed.