Telangana High Court
Mn. Laxmi 70 Mm A/C. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.30633 of 2012
ORDER:
Heard Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vuyyuru Lakshmana Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the 3rd respondent authority in issuing impugned notices dated 07.09.2012 and 14.09.2012, as being illegal, null and void, contrary to the judgment of the High Court with a consequential direction to the respondent authority not to interfere with the construction and running of the petitioner theatre.
3. Petitioner contends that it had obtained necessary permission from the licensing authority i.e., Joint Collector in the year 2003 for construction of permanent Cinema Theatre in Sy. No.71, Miyapaur village, Serilingampaly Municipality, Ranga 2 Reddy District and on completion of the said construction, a theatre is being run by obtaining periodical renewals from the licensing authority.
4. It is further contended by the petitioner that as per the provisions of The Telangana Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in particular Section 6 of the Act, the licensing authority has been specified as District Collector or the person authorized by him, insofar as the areas falling under the Municipalities Act, while such power is vested with the Police Commissioner for areas under the purview of GHMC Act, 1955 who is considered as the licensing authority.
5. Petitioner further contends that the petitioner having obtained license in terms of Section 6 of the Act, and since the said provisions of the Act begins with non-obstante clause, the same has an overriding effect over the other/general laws being the specific enactment.
6. Petitioner thus, contends that it having obtained license from the licensing authority under the Act, the impugned notices issued by the 3rd respondent authority which are clearly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said authority is 3 exercising power under a general law while the permission granted in favour of the petitioner is under a specific enactment.
7. Petitioner by contending as above has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Krishna 70mm Cinema Theatre, Miyapur, R.R. District and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 wherein this Court considering the similar issue had held that the authorities under the Municipalities Act have no power or authority either to process or give any sanction for permission for construction of the building for exhibition of films.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents while not disputing that this Court in the decision rendered in the case of Krishna 70mm Cinema Theatre (1 supra) having categorically held that Section 6 of the Act and the Rules alone would apply for construction of Cinema theatres would however submit that the petitioner having submitted his explanation to the notice dated 07.09.2012 had approached this Court even before the said authority considering the said explanation submitted.
9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 1 2007 (7) ALD 206 4
10. Firstly, it is to be noted that the Act is a specific enactment dealing with exhibition of Cinematograph.
11. Section 2(1) of the Act, defines a Cinematograph as under:
"2(1) "cinematograph" includes any apparatus for the representation of the moving pictures or series of pictures"
12. Section 3 of the Act specifies that exhibition of Cinematographs are to be conducted only after obtaining a license.
13. Section 6 of the Act deals with the grant of permission for buildings constructed solely for the purpose of conducting Cinematograph exhibition. The said provision specifies that the power to grant such permission is vested with the licensing authority defined in Section 4 of the Act.
14. Further, Section 6 of the Act specifies that the provisions of Act has an overriding effect on provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act, 1888, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920, the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act,1920, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920 and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Panchayats Act, 1950. 5 The same can be understood by use of the words nothing contained in the aforementioned Act having application to the buildings meant for exhibition of Cinematograph.
15. If the aforesaid provisions of the Act are taken into consideration, it would be evident that the Municipal Authorities cannot insist for obtaining building permission from the said authorities for construction of a structure/building intended for use as a theatre. Though by the impugned notices, the respondent had sought to contend that the licensing authority who had granted permission to the petitioner is not a technical person for grant of such permission, it is to be noted that while the licensing authority may be the one specified under Section 4, but under the said authority there are multiple authorities to whom application would in turn had forwarded by the licensing authority viz., roads and buildings, electrical, Medical and health and fire department, including the Municipal authorities for the said authorities to give their report with regard to grant of license.
16. Even in the facts of the case, the petitioner had applied for construction permission through the Commissioner of Police, being the Licensing Authority as the subject area falls within the jurisdiction of the GHMC Act, in turn the 6 Commissioner in respect of Commissionerate being designated as the licensing authority who after getting a report from the 2nd respondent on 20.08.2010 had accorded permission. Thus, it is not open for the 3rd respondent to claim that it is only the Municipal authorities who are authorized to give building permission, including for the theatres, more particularly when his higher authority had already sent his report stating that he has no objection for construction of permanent Cinema theatre.
17. Further, it is also to be noted that the 3rd respondent had issued the impugned notices in total disregard to the provisions of the Act which specifically oust the jurisdiction of the Municipal authorities for grant of building permission and designates only the authorities specified under Section 4 of the Act as the licensing authority.
18. Further, this Court having already held that the Municipal authorities do not have the power or authority to either process or give any sanction for permission of construction of building, the impugned notices as issued by the 3rd respondent authority cannot be sustained.
19. It may also be not out of place to mention that this Court in M/s. Raghavendra Theatre Malkajgiri v. State of 7 Telangana rep., by its Secretary, Enforcement Vigilance Disaster Management 2 had an occasion to deal with the power of Municipal authorities to issue notices and this Court taking into consideration the provisions of the Act had held that the Municipal authorities have the power to only cause inspection of a Cinema building, but on finding any deviation or breach during such inspection, the Municipal Authority is required to bring the same to the notice of the licensing authority, for the latter to initiate action.
20. The aforesaid decision of this Court has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.409 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024.
21. The above being the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notices as issued by the 3rd respondent is in clear contravention of the provisions of the Act and for the said reason cannot be sustained.
22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notices dated 07.09.2012 and 14.09.2012 are set aside. No order as to costs.
2 Order dated 03.05.2024 in W.P. No.9972 of 2024 8 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: .08.2024
MRKR