Sengottian vs The Additional Commissioner, Land Administration (Cinema), The Proprietor, Samburna Touring Talkies and The District Collector

M. Venugopal, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition of certiorari in calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.

L3/C.A28/2003 dated 8.7.2003 and to quash the same.

The first respondent/Additional Commissioner, Land Administration (Cinema) in proceedings No. L3/C.A28/2003, dated 8.7.2003 while

deciding the said petition in an appeal has observed in paragraph 4 the following:

This case was posted for Hearing on 7.7.2003. Both the Counsel of the Appellant and Respondent were present and argued on the Stay Petition.

After taking into consideration, the points put forth during the course of hearing, the Stay Petition is hereby rejected for the reasons, that the

appellant is not a directly aggrieved party and there is no valid ground for the issue of Stay Order for getting any immediate relief by the appellant.

and further in paragraph 5 has mentioned that ''the Main Appeal Petition will be taken up for hearing on 14.07.2003 (MONDAY) at 4.30 p.m as

already scheduled''.

This Court in W.P.M.P. No. 24602 of 2003 has granted interim stay on 16.7.2003 at the time of admitting the writ petition. Further, on

25.08.2003 in W.P.M.P. No. 24602 of 2003 it has observed the following:

Admittedly, there is an order of interim stay granted on 16.7.2003 at the time of admitting the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the

respondents relied on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Ramanathan v. V. Balraj and Ors. reported in 1998 WLR 192 for the proposition

that stay cannot be granted on the grounds raised by the rival claimant. The petitioner is the rival claimant. This aspect of the matter has to be

considered at the time of disposal of the main writ petition. When this Court found prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and granted interim

order as early as 16.7.2003, the same cannot be vacated now.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that for the period from 05.05.2003 to 02.03.2004 ''C'' form licence

was ordered to be issued in favour of Mr. R. Lakshmanan and that the period had since been over and therefore nothing survives for adjudication

in the writ petition.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the second respondent brings it to the notice of this Court the decision Ramanathan v. V. Balraj and Ors.

reported in 1998 WL.R. 192 at page 197 in paragraph 14 to 17 wherein it is observed as follows:

It is settled by catena decisions of the Supreme Court, various High Courts and of our High Court that the Cinematographis Act and the Rules

do not confer any substantive justiciable right on a rival in Cinema trade, apart from the option, in common with the rest of the public, to lodge an

objection in response to the notice published under the relevant Rule. Thus the proprietor of Cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting

Cinematograph films has no legal right under the statutory provisions or under the general law which can be said to have been subjected to or

threatened with injury as a result of the grant of No objection Certificate to the rival trader.

A Full Bench of our High Court, comprising of Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was), K.M. Natarajan, J., and Bellie, J., while dealing with the

objection raised by an existing mill owner held that he is not a person aggrieved and he has no locus standi to challenge the grant. In the said

decision reported in Krishnamurthi v. The DRO, Vellore 1989 W L.R. 335 : 1989 1 LW 526, the Full Bench has held as follows:

An existing rice mill owner whenever there is a grant of a permit or licence in favour of another under the Rice Milling (Industry Regulation Act,

1958), cannot be stated to have been denied or deprived of a legal right, or sustained injury to any legally protected interest; the grant does not

operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something; he has not been subjected to a legal wrong; he has

suffered no legal grievance; he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, an therefore he is not a person aggrieved and he has not locus

standi to challenge the grant. Rivalry in the same trade is permissible in law and in that context, a person cannot complain that his commercial

interest is prejudicially affected.

The said case arose under Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. The question that arose for consideration and answered by the Full Bench

is, as to whether an existing rice mill owner could be stated to be an aggrieved person in respect of a grant of a permit or licence under the Act to

another, so as to agitate the matter before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the decision reported in The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and Others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros. and Others, , the Supreme Court

held that the right to carry on business being a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, its exercise is subject only to the

restriction imposed by law in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6)(i). If Section 8(3)(c) of the Act, which is merely regulatory, is

not complied with, there could be imposition of penalty, but a competitor in the business cannot seek to prevent the other.

Therefore, we are of the view that an existing Cinema theatre owner (the appellant herein) whenever there is a grant of a permit or licence in

favour of another (in the instant case in favour of R1) under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, cannot be stated to have

been denied or deprived of a legal right, or sustained injury to any legally protected interest. The grant of NOC does not in any way operate

against him or affect his business. He has no locus standi to challenge the grant of NOC.

Taking into account of the fact that the writ petitioner is not an aggrieved person and bearing in mind a vital fact that the petitioner being a rival

cinema theatre owner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition, this Court opines that the writ petition filed by the petitioner per se is not

maintainable in the eye of law and the same fails.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.