Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 1231 of 1982 and W.A 653 of 1982

Attorney(S)

Mr. R.D Indrasenan for Petr.
Mr. N. Sivamani and R. Desabandu for Government Pleader for Respts

Judges

K.B.N Singh, C.J
Padmanabhan, J.

Acts

differ.5. S. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Padmanabhan, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition was filed by K.R. Subramaniam seeking certiorari to quash the Government Order (G.O.Ms No. 264, Home (Cinema) Department) dated 5th February 1982 which set aside an order of the Commissioner for Land Administration directing the issue of a "no objection certificate" (NOC) for a touring cinema.

Chronology as stated in the opinion:

12 June 1980: Petitioner applied to the Collector of Periyar District for an NOC to locate a touring cinema at specified survey numbers.
The application was published as required; no objections were received within the 15-day period prescribed by rule R.106A. One Nanjappa Nadar filed an objection after expiry of the 15 days which the Collector rejected. Town Panchayat and Superintendent of Police raised no objections.
11 November 1980: The Collector rejected the application by order D.Dis 71284/80-C2.
The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner for Land Administration (the second respondent). The Commissioner held the petitioner may be granted an NOC subject to a condition and remitted the matter to the Collector.
7 May 1981: The Collector again rejected the application.
25 May 1981: On second appeal the Commissioner directed issue of the NOC provided the petitioner gave an undertaking to discontinue when another permanent theatre commenced operation.
Against that Commissioner order, a revision was filed before the Government by the fourth respondent (A. Ponnuswami). On that revision the Government passed G.O.Ms No. 264 dated 5 February 1982 setting aside the Commissioner's order. This gave rise to the present writ petition.
While the writ petition was pending the petitioner sought directions in W.M.P No. 6665 of 1982 for the Collector to issue the NOC in terms of the Commissioner's order. An interim direction to issue the NOC was made by Ramaswami, J. on 8 October 1982; the fourth respondent filed a writ appeal against that interlocutory order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a person who did not file an objection within the 15-day period prescribed by Rule 106A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules is an "aggrieved person" with locus standi to prefer a revision or challenge the grant of a no objection certificate.
Whether the Government's setting aside of the Commissioner's order (by G.O.Ms No. 264) on a revision filed by such a person was within the Government's jurisdiction.
Whether, in the particular circumstances, the fourth respondent could invoke the Government's alleged suo motu powers of revision or otherwise challenge the Commissioner's grant of the NOC on the ground of non-compliance with rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Writ Petitioner (Mr. R.D. Indrasenan)

The fourth respondent did not file any objection before the Collector within the 15 days required by R.106A.
Because the fourth respondent failed to object within the prescribed period, he was not an aggrieved person and lacked locus standi to file a revision before the Government against the Commissioner's order dated 25 May 1981.
The legal position is covered by an established line (catena) of decisions of this Court, and there is no reason to depart from that ratio.

Fourth Respondent (Mr. Sivamani)

Submitted that the Government had suo motu powers of revision (i.e., powers to revise its subordinate authorities' orders on its own motion).
Contended that the Commissioner's grant of the NOC was contrary to the Rules and that this illegality justified the Government's setting aside of the Commissioner's order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
P.S. Somasundaram v. The Board of Revenue, Commissioner of Land Revenue and Cinematograph Act — W.A. 63 of 1973	Interpreted R.106-A: a member of the public who does not file objections within the 15-day period cannot be an aggrieved person entitled to challenge the grant of a licence/NOC.	The Court treated this Bench decision as authoritative on the effect of non-compliance with R.106-A and followed its ratio in the present case.
Provincial Superior Clunny Convent v. State of Tamil Nadu — 1982-1 M.L.J. 358	Reiterated that R.106-A is mandatory; objections filed beyond 15 days have no validity and the licensing authority has no jurisdiction to entertain them; a person who did not file objections within 15 days cannot be an aggrieved person under S.5(7).	The Court quoted and relied on the observations and principles set out in this decision to hold that the fourth respondent lacked locus standi, and that the Government erred in entertaining his revision petition.
W.P. 3505 of 1979 and W.P. 4523 of 1979 (Mohan, J.); W.P. 4442 of 1978 (Sathiadev, J.); W.P. 3510 of 1980 and W.P. 452 of 1981 (Nainar Sundaram, J.)	Instances where the same question — effect of non-compliance with R.106-A — was considered and the ratio of W.A. 63 of 1973 was followed.	The Court noted the consistent adherence by these Judges to the same principle and relied on the existing catena of decisions in concluding that the fourth respondent was not an aggrieved person.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded by reference to the statutory and regulatory scheme and to the precedents interpreting that scheme:

Statutory and Rule framework cited:
- Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 — licensing authority power to grant or refuse a licence.
- Rule 35 of Part II(a) — approval of location of permanent cinemas (referenced as procedure to be followed).
- Rule 100 — a person who intends to build a travelling cinema must follow the procedure in R.35.
- Rule 106A — prescribes notice, invites objections, and requires objections to be filed within 15 days; objections filed after 15 days are to be summarily rejected.
Precedential application:
- The Court reviewed a Bench decision (W.A. 63 of 1973) and several single-Judge decisions which consistently interpreted R.106A to make the 15-day requirement mandatory and to deny locus standi to persons who either filed belated objections or filed none at all.
- The Court also examined the Provincal Superior Clunny Convent decision which expressly stated the mandatory nature of R.106A and concluded that belated objections have no legal validity and cannot give rise to rights of appeal/revision or writ standing.
Application to facts:
- It was admitted in the instant case that the fourth respondent did not file any objection within the statutory 15-day period under R.106A.
- Applying the settled principle, the Court held that the fourth respondent is not an aggrieved person and lacked locus standi to maintain a revision petition before the Government.
- Consequently, the Government's impugned order (G.O.Ms No. 264) entertaining the revision and setting aside the Commissioner's order was held to be without jurisdiction.
Response to alternative arguments:
- The Court addressed the fourth respondent's submission (through Mr. Sivamani) that the Government had suo motu revisionary powers and that the Commissioner's grant of the NOC contravened the Rules. The Court observed the Government's order was passed on the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent; the Government rejected the petitioner's contention before it that the fourth respondent was not aggrieved.
- However, the Court held that the fourth respondent, being non-aggrieved, could not invite the Court to enforce statutory obligations or challenge the Commissioner's order; unless he established he was an aggrieved person, he could not seek examination of the correctness of the Commissioner's order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition was allowed; the impugned Government order setting aside the Commissioner's order was held to be without jurisdiction. The writ appeal filed by the fourth respondent against the interlocutory order was dismissed.

Direct consequences and implications:

The Court concluded that the fourth respondent, having failed to file objections within the 15 days prescribed by R.106A, was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to file the revision before the Government. The Government's acceptance of that revision and resultant order (G.O.Ms No. 264) was therefore without jurisdiction.
The writ petitioner's interim relief (direction to the Collector to issue the NOC in terms of the Commissioner's order) is effectively sustained by the allowance of the writ petition and the dismissal of the appeal against the interlocutory direction.
There will be no order as to costs in both the writ petition and the writ appeal.

The Court based its decision on existing precedents interpreting R.106A and did not purport to lay down any new legal principle beyond adherence to that established ratio.

Show full summary ...

K.R Subramaniam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Deputy Secretary To Government Home (Cinemas) Department, Madras 9 And Others.

Padmanabhan, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed by one K.R Subramaniam for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms No. 264, Home (Cinema) Department, dated 5th February, 1982 under the following circumstances:

2. On 12th June, 1980 the petitioner preferred an application to the Collector of Periyar District, for the grant of a no objection certificate to locate a touring cinema in R.S No. 39/2 and 39/3 of Periakodiveri village in Gobi taluk. The application was duly published in the notice board of the Collectorate and the concerned Panchayat Union office in accordance with the rules. No objections were received from any person within the prescribed period of 15 days. One Nanjappa Nadar, filed an objection after the expiry of the period of 15 days and that was rejected by the Collector, the third respondent herein. The Town Panchayat and the Superintendent of Police did not raise objections to the grant of no objection certificate. The Collector, however, rejected the application by his proceedings D.Dis 71284/80-C2, dated 11th November, 1980. The petitioner then preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Land Administration, Madras, the second respondent. The Commissioner held that the petitioner may be granted a no objection certificate subject to the condition that the petitioner should stop running the cinema as and when two permanent theatres come into operation. With these observations, he emitted the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration. The Collector again rejected the petitioner's application on 7th May, 1981. The petitioner again preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent by his proceedings D.Dis 24240/81, dated 25th May, 1981 directed the issue of no objection certificate to the petitioner on his giving an undertaking that he would discontinue the operation immediately on commencement of Nanjappa Nadar's theatre. Against the said order, Nanjappa Nadar has tiled a writ petition in W.P 3456 of 1981, which is pending on the file of this Court. Though in W.M.P 4697 of 1981, he obtained an ex parte order of interim stay, that was vacated by this Court on 30th July, 1981. While so, the fourth respondent A. Ponnuswami, filed a revision before the Government questioning the order passed by the second respondent, Commissioner directing the issue of no objection certificate to the petitioner. On that revision, the Government passed G.O.Ms No. 264 Home (Cinema) department, dated 5th February, 1982 setting aside the order of the second respondent directing the issue of no objection certificate to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner filed W.M.P No. 6665 of 1982 praying that directions may be issued to the Collector of Periyar district to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner in respect of his touring cinema in terms of the order of the second respondent passed on 25th May, 1981. Ramaswami, J. passed an order on 8th October, 1982 directing the third respondent, Collector of Periyar district, to issue the no objection certificate to the petitioner. The fourth respondent has filed the writ appeal against the said order of the learned Judge.

4. The short submission made by Mr. R.D Indrasenan on behalf of the writ petitioner was that the 4th respondent did not prefer any objection before the Collector within 15 days prescribed under the rules. Consequently, the 4th respondent should not be considered to be an aggrieved person and he had no locus standi to file a revision before the Government against the order passed by the second respondent, Commissioner, on 25th May, 1981 directing the issue of a no objection certificate to the petitioner. The matter is not resintegra and is covered by a catena of decisions of this Court from the ratio of which we do not find any reason to differ.

5. S. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, confers power on the licensing authority to grant or refuse a licence. R. 35 of Part II(a) deals with the approval of location of permanent cinemas. R. 100 of the Rules states that a person who intends to build a travelling cinema building shall follow the procedure in R. 35 in part II(a). R. 106A is to the effect that on receipt of an application for the issue of a no objection certificate, the licensing authority shall publish a notice in the notice board of the office of the licensing authority and the concerned Panchayat Union. The notice must call for objections, if any, from the public in regard to the non compliance by the applicant of the provisions of any of the rules or the violation thereof. The rule further enjoins that the objections should be filed before the licensing authority within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. The rule further states that any objection filed after the expiry of 15 days shall be summarily rejected. The interpretation of this rule came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in P.S Somasundaram v. The Board of Revenue, Commissioner of Land Revenue and Cinomatograph Act . W.A 63 of 1973.. One of the questions which the Bench was called upon to consider was the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of R. 106-A in the matter of preferring the objections. The Bench took the view that a member of the public who does not file the objections within the time prescribed under R. 106-A could not be an aggrieved person. The same question arose before Mohan, J. in W.P 3505 of 1979 and W.P 4523 of 1979, Sathiadev, J. in W.P 4442 of 1978 and Nainar Sundaram, J. in W.P 3510 of 1980 and W.P 452 of 1981.

6. All the learned Judges have consistently followed the ratio laid down by the Bench in W.A 63 of 1973. The correctness of the legal position was again canvassed before one of us in Provincial Superior Clunny Convent v. State of Tamil Nadu . 1982-1-M.L.J 358.. In that case, the Bench decision was sought to be distinguished on the ground that in the case before the Bench the writ petitioner had not filed any objections at all and, therefore, the Bench took the view that the person concerned could not be treated as an aggrieved person within the meaning of S. 5(7). To highlight this, the following observations from the Bench decision were cited—

“All objections under that rule shall be filed in writing before the licensing authority within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. The rule further prescribes that any objection filed after the period shall be liable to be summarily rejected. That means that if the authority rejected the representations on the ground that they were filed out of time, the representation would have no further right to be heard. The case of respondents 2 and 3 is worse. They made no representations.”

From the above observations of the Bench, it was sought to be argued that the Bench impliedly meant to say that the authority could have accepted the representations even after the expiry of 15 days. This argument was not accepted. After considering the Bench decision and the ratio laid down by three other learned Judges already referred to, it was observed as follows—

“The following principles emerge from the above analysis. The provision under R. 106-A, which permits a member of the public to prefer his or her abjections to the grant of a licence within 15 days from the date of the notification, is mandatory. If an objection is filed beyond the 15 days time, such an objection has no validity in law and it cannot be taken note of. The licensing authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an objection that is filed by a member of the public beyond the period of 15 days under R. 106-A, and deal with the same on merits. Even if the Collector or the licensing authority deals with such a belated objection and grants a no objection certificate to the applicant, the objection who has filed a belated objection will have no locus standi either to file an appeal or revision before the appropriate authorities. Such a person cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that the writ petitioner is not an aggrieved person. She had no locus standi to file an appeal or revision before appropriate authorities, Equally, she has no locus standi to file this writ petition.”.

In that case, the writ petitioner did not prefer her objections before the Collector within 15 days. The Collector had refused to grant no objection certificate against which the applicant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Land Revenue and Commercial taxes who set aside the order of the Collector and directed the issue of a no objection certificate against which the writ petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Government which in turn dismissed the revision petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. It was held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person. We are not persuaded to differ from the ratio laid down in the above decision. In this case, it is admitted that the fourth respondent did not prefer any objection at all within the period of 15 days prescribed under R. 106A. Consequently, we hold that he is not an aggrieved person and he could not have maintained a revision petition before the Government. The impugned order of the Government entertaining the revision petition at the instance of the 4th respondent setting aside the order of the second respondent is without jurisdiction.

7. Mr. Sivamani on behalf of the 4th respondent put forward an argument that the Government had suo motu powers of revision and that in any event the grant of the no objection certificate by the second respondent was contrary to the rules. A perusal of the order shows that the Government have passed the impugned order only on the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent. In fact, before the Government, an objection was taken by the writ petitioner that the 4th respondent was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to file a revision as he did not file his objections before the Collector. The Government, however, rejected the objections raised by the writ petitioner as not acceptable. It is unfortunate that in passing the impugned order the Government overlooked the long catena of decisions already referred to which clearly state that a person who does not file an objection before the Collector within 15 days prescribed under R. 106-A is not an aggrieved person and cannot maintain an appeal or revision or a writ petition. He cannot even file a petition before the Collector after the expiry of 15 days. As regards the argument of Mr. Sivamani that the grant of no objection certificate by the second respondent was contrary to the Rules, it is not open to the 4th respondent to urge that notwithstanding himself being not an aggrieved person, this Court must enforce the statutory obligations enjoined on the authorities in deciding that adequacy or suitability, as the case may be. Unless he makes out a case that he is an aggrieved person he cannot invite the Court to examine the correctness of the order passed by the second respondent granting a no objection certificate. We therefore allow this writ petition.

7. In view of the fact that the writ petition itself has been allowed and the writ appeal has only been filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge granting interim direction for the issue of a no objection certificate to the writ petitioner, the writ appeal has to be dismissed and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs both in the writ petition and in the writ appeal.

VCS.

K.R Subramaniam v. The State Of Tamil N...