Nagarjuna Theatre vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Jeevan Reddy

The main contention raised in this writ petition pertains to the validity of Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, in so far as it provides that the licensing authority shall consult, inter alia, the Director of Town Planning in the case of localities covered by Town Planning Schemes, before granting permission for construction of a cinema building. The contention is that, u/s 6 of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920, has been specifically made in applicable in the matter of construction of reconstruction of cinemas and therefore, the Rule which provides for consultation with the Director of Town Planning, is inconsistent with the Act, and hence void. The Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, has been enacted to provide for the regulation of exhibitions by means of cinematographs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to Section 3, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph in any place other than a place licensed under the Act, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Section 4 prescribes the licenser authority. Section 5 provides that the licensing authority shall not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the Rules made under the Act have been substantially complied with and that, adequate Precaution have been taken to provide for the safety of the persons attending exhibitions. Section 6, which is the corner-stone of the petitioner''s submission, may now be set out;--

Special provisions for buildings constructed or reconstructed solely for cinematograph exhibitions:

(1) Nothing contained in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (Act II of 1956), or in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 (Act II of 1888) or in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Act V of 1920), or in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920 (Act VII of 1920), or in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920 (Act XIV of 1920), or in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Act X of 1950), in regard to--

(a) the grant of permission for the construction or reconstruction of a building, or

(b) the grant of licence for the use of any place or building for any purpose for which such licence is required under those Acts, or

(c) the grant of permission to instal any machinery in any place or building,

shall apply to the construction or reconstruction of, or the use of, or the installation of any machinery in, any place or building to be used exclusively for the holding of cinematograph exhibitions: and in every such case, an application for licence or permission referred to in any of the clauses (a) to (c) above shall be made to the licensing authority under this Act, in accordance with the rules made in this behalf under this Act.

(2) Subject to the control of the Government and to any rules made in this behalf, the licensing authority, after making such inquiry as it deems fit and consulting the chief executive officer (by whatever designation he may be known) of the local authority concerned, may, for reasons to be recorded either grant or refuse to grant the licence or permission applied for.

It is necessary to notice the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 6. The several Acts mentioned therein, including the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920, have been made in applicable only to a limited extent. The provisions in those enactments relating to the grant of permission for construction or reconstruction of a building, or relating to the grant of a licence for the use of any place or building for any purpose requiring a licence under those enactments, and those relating to the grant of permission to instal any machinery in any place or building, alone are made inapplicable in the matter of construction or reconstruction of, use of, or installation of any machinery in any place or building to be used exclusively for the holding of cinematograph exhibitions. The object is clear, viz., that the construction of buildings or structures to be used for holding cinematograph exhibitions and the licensing thereof, is to be governed exclusively by the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and not by any other enactment. Undoubtedly, the several Acts mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 6 to take an example, the Village Panchayat Act, or the District Municipalities Act, as the case may be contain provisions regulating the construction or reconstruction of buildings, the exhibition of entertainment shows, and installation of machinery in buildings and places. To avoid overlapping of jurisdiction or probable conflict, or inconsistency between the provisions of those Acts and the provisions of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act and the Rules, such a provision is made in sub-section (1) of Section 6. The sub-section does not exclude the application of the several Acts mentioned therein, altogether. An illustration would do. There may be a town covered by the Town Planning Scheme prepared under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920. Such a scheme has statutory force, and has to be followed by the Municipality or any person proposing to make any construction within the town. This position is not effected by S. 6(1). But for permission for construction of a building or structure intended to be used exclusively for holding of cinematograph exhibitions, a person need not approach the authorities under the Town Planning Act, or under the District Municipalities Act, or the Places of Public Resort Act, as the case may be. He has to approach only the authority prescribed under the Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. That does not, however mean that the authority under the Cinemas (Regulations) Act, while granting permission for construction, is not to be bound by the Town Planning Scheme. It cannot grant permission for construction of a cinema in a place meant as a public park. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 6 expressly provides for consulting the Chief executive officer of the local authority concerned who is undoubtedly bound by the Town Planning Scheme before granting a permission or licence, as the case maybe. Rule 9, which provides that the licensing authority shall, before granting permission for construction of a cinema building, call for reports from the various authorities, including the Director of Town Planning and that, it should take a decision on the question of grant or refusal of permission on receipt of such reports, cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 6. As stated above, Section 6 excludes the operation of the aforesaid Act only to a limited extent. There is no conflict between Rule 9 (1) (b), and Section 6 (1). The grant of permission for a cinema building is not a casual matter. Many a circumstance have to be taken into account, since the location of a cinema is bound to have its own impact in the area surrounding it, or in the locality concerned. Since the Town Planning Scheme is also meant to regulate and promote an orderly growth of the towns, it is but appropriate that the licensing authority obtains the views of the Director of Town planning also and takes the same into consideration while granting or refusing permission for construction. I am, therefore, unable to agree that Rule 9 (1) (b) is in any manner inconsistent with Section 6 of the Act, or that it is void for that reason.

When this writ petition was argued before me, only the question of validity of rule 9 was argued. After reserving the matter for judgment, a representation was made by the counsel for the petitioner that, if I decide the matter against him on the question of law, he may be given an opportunity for arguing on merits. Accordingly I posted the matter for arguments on merits. In fact at the request of the counsel, who was to argue, I adjourned the matter twice or so. Today it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner and also by the Government Pleader that the matter may be remanded for consideration by the second respondent. The counsel for the petitioner however submits that according to the report of the Director of Town Planning, a canteen should not be permitted to be located in the front-portion of the theatre, but, he argues, in the rules there is no such prohibition. Any how this is a matter which the petitioner can always urge before the second respondent, when orders are passed on his application.

Accordingly the matter shall go back to the second respondent for consideration of the petitioner''s application in accordance with law. The licensing authority shall dispose of the application within four weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order and after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions.