Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 183 (KAR)

K. R. SATHYABHAMA v. DIST. MAG. , COORG

1982-08-18

K.S.PUTTASWAMY

body1982
K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the district Magistrate, Madikere Dist, (hereinafter referred to as the 'dm'), respondent no. 1 to consider and dispose of the applications made by her and respondent no. 2 for grant of 'no Objection Certificates' (hereinafter referred to as the 'noc') made under the provisions of the karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules, together. ( 2 ) ON 10-8-1981, respondent No. 2 made an application for grant of an NOC for constructing a permanent cinema theatre on lands bearing Sy. Nos. 85/1, 85/2 and 85/3 of Kushalnagar Town, madikere Dist. , the substance of which was notified by the DM in the notification dated 12 10-1981 published in two Kannada dailies called 'shakti' and 'navashakti' dated 23rd and 24th October, 1981. In response to the said notification of the dm inviting representations and objections, the petitioner who is running a touring talkies in the same town, did not file her objections. ( 3 ) BUT, almost on the eve of consideration of the application of respondent No. 2 by the DM, the petitioner made an application on 16 11-1981 before the DM for grant of an NOC for running a permanent cinema theatre on an entirely different site of the same town. So far, the said application made by the petitioner has not been notified by the DM. ( 4 ) AT the hearing of the application of respondent No. 2 before the DM, the petitioner urged for the consideration of her application with that of respondent No. 2. But, before the DM can pass her orders, the petitioner approached this Court on 25-1-1982 and obtained stay of the consideration of the application made by respondent No. 2, for which reason, the DM, has not so far passed her orders. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has urged that the application made by her more or less at the same time respondent No. 2 made her application, should be considered together by the DM on taking all necessary steps for the publication of her application. ( 6 ) IN her return, respondent No. 1 has urged that the belated application made by the petitioner and the earlier applica. ( 6 ) IN her return, respondent No. 1 has urged that the belated application made by the petitioner and the earlier applica. tion made by respondent No. 2 cannot be considered together. ( 7 ) IN a separate return, respondent No. 2 while supporting respondent No. i, has alleged that the petitioner has filed her application only out of spite and only to delay the consideration of her application which was ripe for consideration. ( 8 ) SRI K. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the applications made by his client and respondent No. 2 were contemporaneous applications and, therefore, should be considered and disposed of together by the DM. ( 9 ) SRI M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, urged that the application made by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were not contemporaneous applications and, cannot be treated together. ( 10 ) EARLIER, I have set out the dates on which the petitioner and respondent No. 2 made their applications for an NOC. ( 11 ) THE words 'contemporaneous' and 'contemporaneously' are defined in the oxford and Websters Dictionaries as hereunder :"oxford English Dictionary (Vol. II) contemporaneous : 1. Belonging to the same time or period, existing or occurring at the same time. (b) Covering the same space of time. 2. Originated at the same time during the same historical or geological period, of the same age. Contemporaneously : at or during the same time. Webster's third new International Dictionary (Vol. I) contemporaneous : 1. Existing or occurring during the same time. 2. Originating, arising or being formed or made at the same time, marked by characteristics compatible with such origin. Contemporaneously : at or near the same time". On the above meanings, applications made at the same time can be considered to have been made contemporaneously. The words 'same time' cannot be literally construed as made on the same day. Applications made within a range of reasonable time have to be considered as made at the same time. So far as applications made on the same day present no difficulty at all. What is a reasonable range of time, cannot be precisely defined, but has to be ascertained on the facts and circumstances of each case. Applications made within a range of reasonable time have to be considered as made at the same time. So far as applications made on the same day present no difficulty at all. What is a reasonable range of time, cannot be precisely defined, but has to be ascertained on the facts and circumstances of each case. At the highest, the applications made before the issue of a notification on any application received can be reasonably and properly construed as made contemporaneously. ( 12 ) AN examination of the dates on which the petitioner and respondent No. 2 made their applications show that they were not contemporaneous applications. On the other hand, the application made by the petitioner was almost on the eve of the disposal of the application made by respondent No. 2. On any principle of law, It is difficult to hold that the applications made by the petitioner and respondent no. 2 are contemporaneous applications. ( 13 ) THAT all contemporaneous applications made by more than one person for the same purpose, that too in case of making a selection of one by excluding another, have to be considered and disposed of together by an authority, is now well settled. But, an application made just on the eve of the disposal of another earlier application, ready for disposal cannot be treated as a contemporaneous application with the former application that is not ready for disposal. Acceptance of the contention urged for the petitioner would almost make it impossible to dispose of applications made under the Act. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this contention of Sri Chandrashekar. ( 14 ) SRI Chandrashekar next contends that if the applications of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are not considered together, there is every possibility of the dm rejecting the application made by the petitioner. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged that there is no basis for the apprehension of Sri Chandrtshekar. ( 16 ) FIRSTLY, the application made by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, are not for locating a cinema theatre on the same site, but relate to two different sites. Secondly the population figures of the town furnished by respondent No. 1 does not at all justify the apprehension of the petitioner. For these reasons, I reject this contention of Sri Chandrashekar. Secondly the population figures of the town furnished by respondent No. 1 does not at all justify the apprehension of the petitioner. For these reasons, I reject this contention of Sri Chandrashekar. ( 17 ) SRI Chandrashekar lastly submits that it is necessary to issue a mandamus to the DM to expeditiously dispose of the application made by the petitioner as early as on 16 11 1981. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged that as the petitioner had not even sought for this relief, there is no justification to examine the said prayer, much less grant the same. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents are right in their submission that the petitioner has not sought for a mandamus to dispose of her application with expedition. But, that by itself does not disentitle this Court to examine the said prayet on facts that are not in dispute and grant the same. ( 20 ) AN application made for grant of an NOC which is the very first stage for grant of a licence under the Act, must be notified within a reasonable time and steps taken for its early disposal. Admittedly the application made by the petitioner as early as on 16 11 1981 has not so far been notified by the DM. I do not see any justifiable ground for the DM not even notifying the application made by the petitioner so far. In this view, it is necessary to direct the DM to dispose of the application made by the petitioner with expedition. ( 21 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I make the following orders and directions : (A) I dismiss this writ petition in so far as it seeks for a mandamus to consider and dispose the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 together. With this, it is now open to the DM to dispose of the application of respondent No. 2 separately in accordance with law ; (B) I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 1 to notify the application made by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order and dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter. ( 22 ) RULE made absolute only tp the extent indicated in sub-para (b) of para 21 and discharged in all other respects. ( 22 ) RULE made absolute only tp the extent indicated in sub-para (b) of para 21 and discharged in all other respects. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 23 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to respondent No. 1 within 10 days from this day. --- *** --- .