Madras High Court
Vel Murugan Theatre, Represented By Its ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 4 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)1MLJ23
ORDER Jayarama Chouta, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent In G.O. Rt. No. 1857, Home (Cinemas-I) Department, dated 20.5.1986, confirming the proceedings of the 3rd respondent made in D. Dis. L.C.A. No. 130 of 1987, dated 20.5.1987 and that of the third respondent in his proceedings made in Roc. C2/160545/86, dated 9.5.1987 and quash the same.
2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition can be gathered from the affidavit of one S. Ramaswamy, who is one of the partner of the petitioner's theatre. The petitioner theatre is a permanent theatre situated in Athur Town, which had been exhibiting four shows per day and had been paying entertainment tax, under Section 5(b) of the Entertainment Tax Act. On 14.1.1986, the petitioner made an application to the Licensing Authority i.e., the Collector of Salem requesting permission to run 5 shows from 16.1.1986 to 19.1.1986, both days in-clusive. 16.1.1986 was Thiruvalluvar day, a public holiday and 18.1.1986, 19.1.1986 happened to be Saturday and Sunday which are also public holidays. According to the petitioner, in terms of the conditions of the 'C Form licence, all that was required to run an extra show on public holidays was to intimate the Licensing Authority and in the case of seeking to run a special show on the local holidays should get prior permission. In view of the fact that 17th was not a public holiday, the petitioner proposed to run five shows on 16, 18 and 19th January, 1986. Since the petitioner did not get any reply within time, he ran five shows on 16, 18 and 19th January, 1986. The said fact had been intimated to the Licensening Authority and the tax was also duly remitted.
3. On 3.3.1987, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the 'C Form License should not be suspended for the alleged violation of running 5 shows on 16, 18, 19th January, 1986 without obtaining prior permission. This contravened condition No. 15(a) of the 'C' Form licence. The second charge was that there were only two operators working in the petitioner theatre and as per the Rules, the petitioner should have three operators in view of the fact that more than four shows had been screened per day.
4. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation setting out the facts and circumstances to show that the penal action initiated by the Licensing Authority was baseless. He has also submitted that the petitioner had duly intimated in advance, and sought permission for running the shows and that action of the petitioner in running five shows on the relevant dates did not constitute any violation. As far as the second charge is concerned, the petitioner pointed out that they had three operators for the petitioner theatre and that in any event, the fact that there were only two operators working on the relevant date, would not amount of violation of Rule 11(1) of the Cinema Regulation Rules.
5. The third respondent passed an order on 9.5.1987 suspending the 'C Form licence of the petitioner the-atre for a period of seven days. An appeal and revision petition filed before the second and first respondents were also dismissed, confirming the order of suspension. Hence, the present writ petition.
6. On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department.
7. 1 heard the Advocate Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents. They took me through affidavit, counter affidavit and relevant orders and the provisions of the Cinema Regulations Act.
8. The main grounds of attack by the learned Advocate for the petitioner were that the authorities below were not justified in suspending the licence when the petitioner had not violated any of the provisions of the licence or the Act or the Regulation. He pointed out that as per condition 14(a) of 'C Form licence, the licensee of the permanent Cinema or semipermanent cinema shall conduct not more than 4 shows within the maximum permitted extended time in a day, provided that on local festival day or public holiday, one special show per day over and above the 4 shows may be permitted by the licensing authority subject to the condition that whenever they are conducting the special show on public holidays and Sundays, the licensee shall intimate the licensing Authority and also the Entertainment Tax Officer having jurisdiction over the place of exhibition in advance, in respect of the conduct of a special show on local festival days, the licensee shall obtain prior permission of the licensing Authority. Placing reliance on the condition of the license, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that an application for run-ning five shows on the 16th, 18th and 19th January, 1986. was made on 14.1.1986. Those 3 days according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, were public holidays and as per condition No. 14(a) five shows can be conducted on public holidays. In that case, only mere intimation will be sufficient. Here, in the present case, the petitioner has intimated the Authority on 14.1.1986 which is sufficient to run five shows on those days. He has further pointed out that prior permission has to be obtained only to run five shows on local festival days. Hence, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the respondents, were not justified in suspending the licence on these grounds.
9. On this point, I heard the learned Government Advocate, who pointed out that there was no prior permission obtained by the petitioner to run give shows. He has only submitted an application on 14.1.1986, which was returned as it was defective, on 21.1.86 and according to the learned Government Advocate, Saturday cannot be treated as public holiday. On this ground he submitted that the view expressed by the respondents in suspending the licence is legal and cannot be found fault with.
10. After going through condition No. 14(a), I am of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for permission on 14.1.1986 to run five shows on 16th, 18th and 19th January, 1986 which are public holidays. That means, mere intimation to the authority was sufficient and prior permission was not necessary. Further more, if there was any defect in the application of the petitioner, the authority ought to have intimated the said defect before the day on which the petitioner had intended to run the show. In the present case, the application was returned only on 21.1.1986.
11. As per the second charge, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that three operators are necessary only in case where more than 4 shows are regularly conducted in the theatre as per Rule 11 of the Rules. In the present case, the petitioner had been regularly showing only 3 shows and two operators were working and that being so, the respondents cannot find fault with the petitioner in not having three operators. The learned Government Advocate took me through the counter affidavit in this regard and pointed out that according to Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957 there shall be two licensed operators in each permanent or semipermanent theatre exhibiting a minimum of three shows per day and in case of more than four shows per day, number of operators shall be three. Admittedly, the petitioner had shown five shows on 16, 18 and 19th January, 1986 and hence should have three operators.
12. I am not impressed by the argument of the learned Government Advocate on this ground. There is no dispute that the petitioner was regularly running three shows, only on special occasions with prior intimation, he ran only four shows and for that purpose he need not had three operators. Hence, this contention of the learned Government Advocate has to be rejected and the contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner has to be accepted. 13. Hence for the reasons stated above, I allow the writ petition. However, there is no order as to costs. In view of the above order passed in the main writ petition, no further orders are necessary in the W.M.P. No. 8998 of 1988.