Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 539 (MAD)

Srinivas Theatre v. Secretary to Government

2001-04-26

A.KULASEKARAN, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2001
Judgment : 1. The appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ petition. The petitioner runs a theatre in the name of “Srinivas” theatre. In the Writ petition, he challenged the order passed by the Collector and the subsequent orders passed regarding the capacity of the seats of the said Srinivas theatre. The original capacity of the theatre was 510 seats and at the instance of the petitioner, it was reduced to 251. It is the power of the Collector to reduce the seats under Rule 83(1)( d) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957. It seems that after the original order was passed, there was one inspection on 1.5.1988 at the instance of the authorities to see whether there was a proper compliance with the Rule that the place which becomes available by reduction of the seats must be converted in such a manner permanently so that nobody is able to see the movie from that place. It seems that on the basis of the inspection dated 1.5.1988, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 27.5.1988 as to why the permission granted earlier to reduce the seats should not be cancelled and the seats should not be restored back. The petitioner seems to have given a reply by his communication dated 8.6.1988, however, the Collector by his order dated 29.7.1988 directed the cancellation of his earlier order and also directed the seats to be restored back. This order came to be challenged by way of a revision as also by way of an appeal before the Joint Commissioner who dismissed the appeal. Therefore a revision before the Government was filed, but the said revision also came to be rejected. Ultimately, the learned single Judge who was approached by way of a writ petition also did not find fault with the orders passed. The present appeal is a result of that. 2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vijayan argued that there has been practically no consideration by the learned single Judge of any of the questions raised in the petition. The learned counsel argues that once there was the permission granted under Rule 83(1)(d) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957, it was understood that the authorities had already taken the inspection and found that the necessary compliance with the rules was already made. The learned counsel argues that once there was the permission granted under Rule 83(1)(d) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957, it was understood that the authorities had already taken the inspection and found that the necessary compliance with the rules was already made. The learned Senior Counsel argues that unless the Collector is satisfied on that behalf, there is no question of his issuing the permission which he has done earlier. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter argues that there would therefore be no question of not complying with the conditions of Rule 83 subsequently and therefore, the Collector was entirely wrong in taking up the exercise that he did. 3. We are not at all impressed by this argument because if the Collector had the power to grant the license to reduce the seats, he also had the power to cancel the same. It seems that the Collector has caused the inspection of the theatre done on 1.5.1988 during which it was found that there has not been a proper compliance in the sense that the available place is not constructed upon. It is for that purpose that the show cause notice dated 27.5.1988 came to be given. The petitioner/appellant has disputed the factual position in the said inspection as also in the show cause notice and tried to contend that he had in fact compiled with the condition of making permanent alterations to ensure that no person could watch the exhibition of the films from the excluded area. The learned counsel very earnestly argues that the appellant had complied with the order in his own way and therefore, there would be no question of his ignoring the order or flouting the conditions in any manner. The learned counsel says that there are factually some alterations because of which it was impossible to watch the films for the spectators. We will not go into such a factual question particularly in our appellate jurisdiction. The three authorities have found that the alterations made by the appellant are not such as could be covered under the Proviso to Rule 83 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957. There is a finding of fact recorded by the first three authorities that there has been no compliance as regards the permanent alterations. If that is so, then in our opinion, the learned single Judge is right in not interfering with the matter. There is a finding of fact recorded by the first three authorities that there has been no compliance as regards the permanent alterations. If that is so, then in our opinion, the learned single Judge is right in not interfering with the matter. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. However before closing, we only say that the appellant may still make a fresh application and show therein that he has made such permanent alterations. However till then, the orders of the authorities would remain in force. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observations. No orders as to costs. C.M.P. No.19019 of 2000 is closed.