Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 81 (MAD)

K. S. Subramanian v. State and Others

2000-01-21

V.KANAGARAJ

body2000
Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein in G.O.Rt. No. 2955 Home (Cine I) Department dated 21-8-1992 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to locate a semi permanent theatre in S. No. 31/1A1, 311/1A2, 311/1B and 313/9 at Vikramasingapuram village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents as well. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would reveal his case stating that he applied for the grant of No objection Certificate (thereinafter referred to as 'NOC') with the third respondent District Collector to locate a semi-permanent theatre in S. No. 311/1A1, 311/1A2, 311/1B and 313/9 at Vikramasingapuram village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, that the Tahsildar, Ambasamudram recommended for the grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner on certain conditions such as, that a bridge should be constructed across the Odai lying nearby; that the sound inside the auditorium should be minimised providing sound proof equipments and that the Sub-Collector also recommended in the same manner for the grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 filed their objections before the District Collector for the grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner on ground that it would be a menace to the students of the 4th respondent school especially to the hostellers since the sound that would emanate from the theatre would affect the studies of the students in view of the fact that the location of the proposed theatre is within the prohibited limits from the hostel; that there had already been an NOC issued for another theatre in S. No. 316/3 which is close to the proposed location of the theatre in question; that the third respondent/District Collector, in consideration of various circumstances, rejected the objections of respondents 4 and 5 and ordered issuing the NOC in favour of the petitioner as per his proceeding in No. No.Mu (CI) 31704/87 dated 26-5-1989. 5. 5. That aggrieved, respondents 4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 10-6-1989 and the second respondent set aside the order of the third respondent/District Collector thereby granting the NOC in favour of the petitioner as per the second respondent's proceeding in Rc. No. C3 C.A. 139, 156 and 159 of 1989 dated 9-11-1990 holding that it would be a definite and constant source of hindrance to the school in general and the inmates of the students' hostel in particular in their studies. The petitioner would further state that aggrieved against this order, he filed a revision before the first respondent and the same having come to be rejected, the petitioner is left with no option but to approach this Court with the above writ petition. Hence, stating that the hostel is 176 metres away from the theatre and that he had constructed the bridge across the Odai at a cost of Rs. 60, 000/- besides laying the foundation of the theatre building at a cost of Rs. 60, 000/- that the interest of the other section of the public in general is in no way affected by the grant of NOC and hence would pray for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 6. In the counter filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, it would be contended that the studies of the students who are staying in the residential hostel in a close range will be drastically affected in many ways; that the site is within the prohibitary limits; that it is irrelevant that the petitioner had spent Rs. 60, 000/- for the construction of the bridge and Rs. 60, 000/- for laying the foundation of the theatre building; that other inconvenience also will be posed to the residents living in and around the area; that it is no way violative of Art. 19(1) and (g) of the Constitution of India and would ultimately pray for dismissing the writ petition with costs. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that for the serious objections raised by respondents 4 and 5 pointing out the disturbance that would be caused to the residential hostellers of the St. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that for the serious objections raised by respondents 4 and 5 pointing out the disturbance that would be caused to the residential hostellers of the St. Mary's School, they would reduce the volume of the sound box and see that the students are not disturbed from their studies and would further contend that only in consideration and imposing such conditions, the District Collector the third respondent herein granted the NOC in favour of the petitioner and on such conditions the petitioner could be permitted and further contending that unless the petitioner is granted with the NOC, he will be subjected to irreperable hardship and loss since he had already spent a lot of money in the process of constructing the bridge and laying of the foundation to the theatre. 8. On the part of respondents 1 to 3, the learned Government Advocate (on the writ side) would contend that though the third respondent/District Collector on certain grounds allowed the petition filed by the petitioner thus granting the NOC in his favour subject to certain conditions, still, on appeal and revision before the second and first respondents respectively it had been decided against the petitioner since it is going to be a hindrance to the studies of the hostel students of the 4th respondent/school; that moreover, three would also be disturbance and nuisance caused by the cinema going public and the ultimate sufferers are the school/going children and such a risk cannot at all be taken on the part of the guardians of law such as, respondents 1 and 2 and hence, they have rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner for the NOC to be granted in his favour thus setting aside conditional grant of permit made by the third respondent/District Collector. 9. 9. In consideration of the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the writ petition on the part of the petitioner and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, what comes to be known is that the petitioner has filed an application praying to issue the NOC for putting up a semi-permanent theatre in S. No. 311/1A1, 311/1A2, 311/1B and 313/9 at Vikramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District; that according to the petitioner based on the recommendations of the local Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector, the third respondent/District Collector passed orders granting the NOC in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. Still, mainly on ground that it would be a hindrance or nuisance for the studies of the students staying in the nearby hostel attached to the St. Mary's School and no amount of condition imposed will be able to save the studies of the children once the NOC is granted and the cinema theatre starts functioning the request of the petitioner had been turned down by respondents No. 1 and 2. 10. Moreover, it would further be contended that by the cinema going public also, the studies of the hostel students will be disturbed day in and day out and hence on the stiff opposition and objections raised by respondents 4 and 5, the second respondent and the first respondent would reject the plea of the petitioner not only setting aside the NOC granted by the third respondent but also refusing to concede the request of the petitioner to any extent much less subject to conditions. The reasons attributed for rejection of the plea of the petitioner to grant the NOC for starting the cinema theatre in the said location as seen from the order passed by the second and first respondents respectively are quite basic and strong reasons in the sense that such a NOC granted for starting the cinema theatre is susceptible to affect the studies of the school children of not only the school but also the nearby hostel and so far as this reason is concerned, there can never be any compromise at all and besides this, the other reasons assigned by the first and second respondents are also quite relevant and tangible for consideration. 11. 11. While so, the other reason attributed on the part of the petitioner that yet another person by name Pugalum Perumalpillai had already been granted with a NOC for a similar theatre to be run nearby and hence the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that while similarly placed the said Pugalum Perumalpillai had been granted with the NOC, the rejection of the same for the petitioner is nothing short of discrimination in the eye of law and hence it is violative of Art. 19(1) and (g) of the Constitution of India and on such grounds, would seek allowing the writ petition to the effect of its prayer. 12. If the other NOC granted in favour of the other person mentioned above is also having similar conditions which are attributed for rejecting the plea of this writ petition for the grant of NOC, the authorities especially that of the third respondent/District Collector should initiate such measures to remove the said theatre if it is falling within the prohibited limits or degrees fixed by the law or in violation of the licensing conditions imposed the rules. Based on the ground that another person had been granted NOC to run a theatre which would also hinder the studies of the students of the school and the hostel, the petitioner cannot claim the same NOC on ground of discrimination. The petitioner cannot cite a bad precedent and claim it as of right on ground of discrimination since no one is entitled to claim equality in illegality or irregularity. Only healthy precedents should be cited and only constructive and positive approach of discrimination could be claimed and not for detrimental or destructive purposes. Hence, at this score also the petition does not deserve to be considered to any extent. 13. In short, the orders passed by the second and first respondents respectively are passed on sound reasons and I am unable to sue any patent error of law or perversity in approach so far as the orders passed rejecting the plea of the petitioner besides setting aside the order passed by the third respondent/District Collector in granting the NOC in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions are concerned. 14. 14. For all the foregoing reasons, the only conclusion that this Court could arrive at in the given facts and circumstances of the case is that there is no reason for this Court to cause its interference into the orders passed by the first and second respondents and consequently, the sole conclusion that could be arrived at is only to dismiss the writ petition. In result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.