AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan, J.—The petitioner applied to the Collector on 20th February, 1976 for the grant of a ''no objection'' certificate to construct a permanent air-conditioned theatre in T.S. No. 397/1 (Part) of Block No. 49, Ward No. 24 of Tiruchirapalli Municipality. Notices inviting objections were duly published at the Collectorate and at the Thiruchirapalli Municipal Office on 25th February, 1978 and 1st March, 1978 respectively. The Commercial tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli (Rural) and (Town), and the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli did not raise any objection to the proposed grant. However, the Tiruchirapalli Municipality raised objections on the ground that the proposed site had been reserved for residential purposes in the Town Planning records and that there were important institutions such as Campion High School, etc., and Municipal Offices were situated nearby. The principal of Campion High School and the Hospital administrator of Child Jesus Hospital filed their objections in June, 1978 and July, 1978. On a consideration of these objections, the Collector held by his order, dated 11th December, 1978 that the objections of the Principal and Correspondent, Campion High School, Tiruchirapalli, carried weight and it was objectionable to locate a permanent theatre in the vicinity of the school and, therefore, rejected the request of the petitioner for the grant of a ''no objection certificate''. Aggrieved by this rejection order, the matter was taken up to the Board of Revenue in appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, the same objections were filed. It requires to be noted at this stage that the contention of the writ petitioner was that the objections of the school were belated and should not have been considered by the Collector. This argument was rejected stating that there was nothing preventing the licensing authority to consider them if he so desires, in the public interest, even though the objections were belated. On this finding, in B.P. Rt. 1524 (L) dated 14th March, 1979, the appeal was rejected. It is against these successive orders of rejection, the present writ petition has been preferred. The first and the foremost contention of Mr. Muthukumaraswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in so far as Rr.35 and 35A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957 lay down the procedure for the receipt of objections and admittedly the objections filed either by the Municipality or by the third respondent school were beyond the period prescribed within those rules, these objections cannot be held to be valid objections within the meaning of law and consequently the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. It is further contended that barring those provisions relating to the receipt of objections, there is no other power vested in the licensing authority, namely, the Collector to consider the objections in public interest and that the finding of the Board of Revenue is clearly illegal. As against this Mr. Chinnaswami, appearing for the Municipality would submit that in so far as the Municipality has raised specific objections that the location of the theatre would not be conducive to the interests of the public having regard to the reservation of the site under the Town Planning Scheme and in as much as the Collector had made a personal inspection of the site and if he had found the site objectionable, there will be no difficulty in upholding the order. Mr. Stanislas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and the other respondents also support this plea and submit that in the interests of public it is well open to the Collector to consider the objections after all the matter is brought to the knowledge of the licensing authority one way or the other.
On a careful consideration of the above arguments, I am of the view that the stand of the respondents cannot be held to be tenable at all. Rules 35 and 35-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957, lay down the procedure for submission of objections. Under R. 35 (2), 45 days time is given for the local authority to forward its objections to the licencing authority. It is now admitted on all sides that the objections of the Municipality were never forwarded within 45 days limit. Be that so. Turning to R.35 (3), the Police authority, viz., the Superintendent of Police did not raise any objection within 30 days prescribed under the said sub-rule. As regards the public, it is R.35A which should govern. That rule reads as follows--
On receipt of the application, the licencing authority shall cause a notice to be published to the notice board of the office of the licensing authority and the Panchayat Union concerned, of the fact of receipt of the application, with such details as may be considered necessary and calling for objections, if any, from the public in regard to the non-compliance by the applicant of the provisions of any of these rules. All objections shall be filed in writing before the licensing authority within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. Any objection filed after this period, shall be liable to be summarily rejected.
Therefore, the objections of the other respondents like the third respondent-school or the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent should have been submitted within 15 days from the date of the application of the petitioner. In so far as the application of the petitioner was notified at the Collectorate on 25th February, 1978 and at the Municipal Office on 1st March, 1978, the last date for submission of the application within the scope of the above rule will be 15th March, 1978 in the instant case, admittedly, the 3rd respondent sent his objections only in June, 1978. Likewise, the respondents 4 and 5 sent their objections only in July, 1978. Under these circumstances, they also were belated and the resultant position is that the objections of the Municipality within the meaning of R.35 (2) were belated. Likewise, the objections of respondents 3, 4 and 5, within the meaning of R.35-A. If that be the resultant position, can they be considered to be valid objections in law? I am afraid they cannot be considered to be valid objections in law. This is because where law lays down a procedure, that procedure will have to be followed. It should be remembered in this connection that the licensing authority is entrusted with power subject to the provisions of the statute and the rules made thereunder. He has no inherent power. As a matter of fact, I have myself taken the view that belated objections cannot be considered to be valid objections in W.P. 138 of 1978. The ratio of that ruling will squarely apply.
The next question that has to be considered is whether the licensing authority, having regard to the scope of S.5 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, can consider these matters under S.5 of the Act. S.5 of the Act states that the licensing authority shall have regard to the following matters, namely, (a) the interest of the public generally; (b) the status, antecedents and previous experience of the applicant, (c) the suitability of the place where the cinematograph exhibitions are proposed to be given; (d) the adequacy of existing places for the exhibition of cinematograph films in the locality; (e) the benefit to any particular locality or localities to be afforded by the opening of a new place of cinematograph exhibition, and (f) the possession by the applicant, of other places, if any, licensed under this Act, whether in the same locality or elsewhere, and whether at the time of applying for the licence or at any previous time, it is not possible to contend that by reason of the personal inspection the Collector gains certain knowledge and therefore, that knowledge could be utilised. For two reasons, this submission will have to be rejected, because neither the order of the Collector nor of the Board puts it on this ground. Then, again a question may arise whether the knowledge gained on personal inspection could be utilised for a judicial disposal of the matter and in such a case whether it would not be tainted with an element of bias. But I do not think, I need consider all these, because, as I observed above, the Collector merely upholds the objection of the third respondent and that order is confirmed by the Board stating that even though the objections of the third respondent were belated, yet in public interest the licensing authority could consider. This is not the correct way of approaching the matter. S.5 of the Act merely says ''shall have regard'' but that does not mean he can travel outside the ambit of the section or the rules and consider some objections which objections, I have already held, to be not valid in law. Having regard to the above, I hereby quash the impugned orders of the Collector and the Board of Revenue and the matter is remitted for fresh disposal to the Collector, Tiruchirapalli, to consider the application of the petitioner on merits. The writ petition is allowed and remitted. No costs. I make it clear that inasmuch as I have already held that the objections are invalid, the application of the petitioner for the grant of a ''no objection certificate'' will have to be considered on merits without reference to these objections.