Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2883 (MAD)

A. Ramasamy v. Commissioner of Police, Egmore

2011-06-21

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
JUDGMENT :- 1. Writ Petition No.8017 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the respondent vide letter No.EI (1)/803/109656/2008 dated 3.9.2009, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner dated 25.11.2008 for construction of new building for locating A/C plant room and AHU in the open space available on the rear side and side foyer along with the canteen on the Western side in M/s.Sri Shanmuga Theatre, G.N.T. Road, Chennai-600 118 and grant sanction for the same in terms of Rules 77, 78 and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 without insisting upon any planning permissions from CMDA. 2. Writ Petition No.9770 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in the proceedings relating to Rc.No/E2(1)/265/11283/2001 dated 30.3.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 31.1.2011 and grant sanction for the same in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules, 1957 without insisting upon planning permission from the CMDA. 3. Mrs.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appears for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 4. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions is almost similar. Hence, by consent of both parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 5. W.P.No.8017 of 2011:- The facts in this case is that the petitioner is a holder of licence to run a cinema theatre and it is in existence for more than three decades. In order to provide extra amenities to the public by way of air condition and toilet facilities, petitioner approaches the Licensing Authority by way of an application seeking permission to take up the modification work. Such application was made to the respondent Licensing Authority in terms of Section 4 read with Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955. On the application, the Public Works Department recommended the case of the petitioner in proceedings No.P & D/AEE.IV/1046M/2008/598M dated 15.12.2008. Such application was made to the respondent Licensing Authority in terms of Section 4 read with Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955. On the application, the Public Works Department recommended the case of the petitioner in proceedings No.P & D/AEE.IV/1046M/2008/598M dated 15.12.2008. Respondent in this case passed the impugned order on 3.9.2009 directing the petitioner to obtain the approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for the proposed construction of A/C Plant room and thereafter forward the application for appropriate orders in terms of Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955. Challenging the same, present writ petition has been filed. 6. W.P.No.9770 of 2011:- The facts in this case is that the petitioner is a holder of licence to run a cinema theatre and it is in existence for more than 3 decades. Petitioner made an application to the first respondent on 31.1.2011 for renovation and alteration in terms of Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 along with recommendation of the Public Works Department. The first respondent by referring to a Government letter No.87938/Cinema-1/04-11 dated 19.12.2005 called upon the petitioner to submit a no objection certificate from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. As in the earlier case, such request was not considered by the first respondent stating that the approval of the plan by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is mandatory. The first respondent directed the petitioner to obtain and submit a plan approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for the above stated work. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed. 7. Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 provides for construction and reconstruction of any buildings for exhibition and application should be made to the Licensing Authority for permission. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed. 7. Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 provides for construction and reconstruction of any buildings for exhibition and application should be made to the Licensing Authority for permission. Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 reads as follows:- "5-A. Licensing authority to permit construction and reconstruction of buildings, installation of machinery, etc., for cinematograph exhibitions:- (1) Any person who intends:- (a) to use any place for the exhibition of cinematography films, or (b) to use any site for constructing a building thereon for the exhibition of cinematography films, or (c) to construct or reconstruct any building for such exhibition, or (d) to install any machinery in any place where cinematogpraph exhibitions are proposed to be given, shall make an application in writing to the licensing authority for permission thereof together with such particulars as may be prescribed, and any provision contained in the enactments specified below or in the rules made under any of them or in any other law governing municipal or local bodies in the State or in the rules made under any such enactment or other law in so far as it relates to any of the matters specified above shall not apply to any application made under this section:- (i) The Tamil Nadu Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1888); (ii) The Madras City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1888); (iii)The Madras City Municipal [Corporation] Act, 1919 (Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1919;) (iv)The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920); (v) The Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958); and (vi)The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, (Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1971); (2) The licensing authority shall thereupon, after consulting such authority or officer as may be prescribed, grant or refuse permission and the provision of sections 5, 8, 9, 9-A and 9-B relating to licences shall, so far as may be, apply to permission under this section." 8. Application in both these cases has been made in terms of Section 5-A of the Act. The section specifically makes it clear that the six other Acts, viz., (i) to (vi) referred to above in that section does not apply to Section 5-A of the Act. Application in both these cases has been made in terms of Section 5-A of the Act. The section specifically makes it clear that the six other Acts, viz., (i) to (vi) referred to above in that section does not apply to Section 5-A of the Act. When the section 5-A of the Act does not provide for approval of the plan by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the Licensing Authority is not justified in asking the petitioner to obtain the approval of the plan by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. When there is no such requirement under Law, the Government Letter dated 19.12.2005 cannot be relied upon by the respondent authority. While considering the application under Section 5-A of the Act, it is specifically mentioned that any provision contained in the enactment specified in section 5-A of the Act or any other law governing municipal or legal bodies in the State shall not apply. When section 5-A of the Act is very clear and categorical in omission of other Acts, in their letter the Government cannot override the section and impose a condition that is not contemplated. 9. The Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 is very clear and specific, in that the Licensing Authority alone is competent to consider the application. 10. Similar issue was considered by this Court (K.VENKATARAMAN,J.) in W.P.No.18909 of 2008 by order dated 9.12.2009 and W.P.No.15705 of 2009 by order dated dated 25.11.2009. In one of the above two cases, the Government has directed the authority to implement the order of the Court. I am in respectful agreement with the reasonings given in the earlier orders and the same will also apply to the facts of the present case as well. 11. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.8017 of 2011 and paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.9770 of 2011, it has been admitted that based on the orders of this Court, the Licensing Authority has granted approval to other theatres without insisting the approval by the CMDA. Since orders have been passed in respect of those theatres only, the petitioners cannot claim the same relief. This stand of the respondent is totally untenable, as the law will apply uniformly to all similarly placed persons. 12. Since orders have been passed in respect of those theatres only, the petitioners cannot claim the same relief. This stand of the respondent is totally untenable, as the law will apply uniformly to all similarly placed persons. 12. In the result, the impugned proceedings in both the cases are set aside and the Licensing Authority is directed to grant the approval if the applications are otherwise in order. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.