Skip to content


Sri K. Basappa Vs. the District Magistrate and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWin Appeal No. 6367/2002
Judge
Reported inILR2006KAR470; 2006(1)KarLJ552
ActsKarnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 - Sections 3, 4 and 5; Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971 - Rules 25, 46, 49(13), 49(14), 89, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111A, 111E and 111F to 111Z
AppellantSri K. Basappa
RespondentThe District Magistrate and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.G. Sridharan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.G. Shivanna, AGA for R-l and ;S.N. Hatti, Adv. for R-2
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....111 a, 111e-whether the kcr (amendment) rules, 1971 provides for issue of noc to put up temporary cinema talkies-held-a reading of the rules manifestly makes it clear, that the rules provides for grant of noc and licence for temporary cinema talkies. rule 106 of the rules defines a temporary cinema; rule 108 specifies the period for which the licence may be granted for a temporary cinema; rule 110 provides for conversion of a temporary cinema into semi-permanent cinema; rule 107 specifies the procedure to be followed for grant of noc to put up a temporary cinema talkies. the first respondent - district magistrate, by following the procedure as per the rules and the act issued noc and licence to the second respondent for starting a temporary cinema talkies. it is not shown to this court..........to the first respondent for grant of no objection certificate (noc) to put up a temporary cinema talkies in survey no. 551/a/a 1 of kudithini village. the first respondent, by following the procedure prescribed under the karnataka cinema (regulation) rules, 1971 ('the rules' for short), issued noc to the second respondent to put up a temporary cinema talkies by his order dated 14.03.2002 as per annexure u to the writ petition and the licence dated 21.05.2002 as per annexure y1 to the writ petition. the appellant, being aggrieved by this grant of noc by the first respondent, filed w.p. no. 19947/2002 on the file of this court. the learned single judge by a reasoned order dated 04.10.2002 rejected the writ petition. hence this writ appeal.3. sri b.g sridharan, learned counsel for.....
Judgment:

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2002 dismissing the writ petition No. 19947 / 2002.

2. Appellant is an exhibitor of cinematograph shows in Kudithini village, Bellary Taluk. The second respondent made an application to the First Respondent for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to put up a temporary cinema talkies in survey No. 551/A/A 1 of Kudithini village. The First Respondent, by following the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules' for short), issued NOC to the second respondent to put up a temporary cinema talkies by his order dated 14.03.2002 as per Annexure U to the writ petition and the licence dated 21.05.2002 as per Annexure Y1 to the writ petition. The appellant, being aggrieved by this grant of NOC by the First Respondent, filed W.P. No. 19947/2002 on the file of this Court. The Learned Single Judge by a reasoned order dated 04.10.2002 rejected the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.

3. Sri B.G Sridharan, Learned Counsel for the appellant contends, that grant of NOC for temporary cinema talkies is governed by Rule 109 of the Rules. He contends, that a person who has already obtained NOC under Rule 105 for touring cinema alone is entitled for conversion to temporary cinema. He contends, that the second respondent is not the licence holder of touring cinema and as such, she is not entitled for NOC for a temporary cinema. The First Respondent has no jurisdiction to issue NOC for a temporary cinema. He contends, that under the Rules there is no scope for grant of temporary cinema licence. The Rules only provide for a conversion of touring cinema licence in to temporary cinema licence.

4. Per contra, Sri A.G Shivanna, Learned Additional Government Advocate contends, that the authorities under the Rules are issuing NOC for temporary cinema talkies. He submits, that Rules 106,107, 108 and 110 governs the procedure for grant of NOC for temporary cinema talkies. Sri S.N. Hatti, Learned Counsel for second respondent justifies the order of Learned Single Judge.

5. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ appeal papers.

6. The following question will arise for our consideration in this appeal.

Whether the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1971, provides for issue of NOC to put up temporary cinema talkies?

7. At this stage, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions in the Act and the Rules. The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') provide for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematographs and the licensing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited in the State of Karnataka. Section 3 of the Act specifies, that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of a District Magistrate is the licensing authority. Section 4 of the Act specifies, that no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematography elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides for making an application with necessary particulars for obtaining licence. Rule 25 of the Rules provides for permanent cinema talkies. Rule 89 of the Rules provides for touring cinema talkies and Rule 105 of the Rules provides for conversion of touring cinemas into semi-permanent cinemas. Rule 106 of the Rules provides for temporary cinemas and Rule 110 provides for conversion of temporary cinemas into semi-permanent cinemas. Rule 111E of the Rules provides for grant of licence for semi-permanent cinemas. Rule 111A of the Rules provides for drive for drive-in-cinema.

8. The relevant rules governing the grant of licence for a temporary cinema talkies are Rules 106, 107, 108 and 110. They read as under:

106. Temporary Cinema. - Temporary cinema means a cinema other than touring cinema, semi-permanent cinema, drive-in-cinema and permanent cinema.

107. Application of rules. - The provisions of Rules 111 -F to 111 -Z, except Rules 46 and Sub-rules (13) and (14) of Rules 49,111 -L, 111 -M and 111 -R under Chapter XII-B applicable to a semi-permanent cinema shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to a temporary cinema.

108. Duration of licence for temporary cinema. - A temporary cinema licence may be granted for a period of one year at a time and total period of such licence shall not exceed five years.

110. Conversion of temporary cinema into semi-permanent cinema. - The Licensing Authority may grant semi-permanent cinema Licence to a temporary cinema licence under Rule 111 -Q, if such person converts temporary cinema into semi-permanent cinema in accordance with the provisions relating to the construction of such cinema before the expiry of the licence period specified in Rule 108.

9. A reading of the above Rules manifestly makes it clear, that the Rules provides for grant of NOC and licence for temporary cinema talkies. Rule 106 of the Rules defines a temporary cinema; Rule 108 specifies the period for which the licence may be granted for a temporary cinema; Rule 110 provides for conversion of a temporary cinema into semi-permanent cinema; Rule 107 specifies the procedure to be followed for grant of NOC to put up a temporary cinema talkies. In view of these provisions in the Act and the Rules, we decline to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for appellant that there is no scope for grant of NOC for temporary cinema.

10. The First Respondent - District Magistrate, by following the procedure as per the Rules and the Act issued NOC and licence to the Second Respondent for starting a temporary cinema talkies. It is not shown to us any irregularity committed by the First Respondent in granting temporary cinema licence to the Second Respondent. We decline to accept the contention of the appellant that the First Respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the temporary cinema licence under the Rules.

11. We have no reason to differ with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //