Madras High Court
Ma.Vetrivel vs The District Collector on 22 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1708 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.A(MD)No.1708 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)No.13140 of 2024
Ma.Vetrivel ... Appellant
vs.
1. The District Collector,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
2. The Commissioner,
Thanjavur Municipal Corporation,
Thanjavur.
3. The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur. ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
made in W.P(MD)No.13729 of 2024, dated 01.07.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
W.A(MD)No.1708 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
for Mr.R.Velmurugan
For R1, R3 & R4 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in the Writ Petition was to the proceedings of the District
Collector, Thanjavur District, dated 10.06.2024, in and by which, the District
Collector refused location approval for setting up a permanent Cinema Theatre
in the Muthamizh Arignar Mu.Karunanithi Maanaatu Arangam (Convention
Centre), Thanjavur, put up by the second respondent / Thanjavur Municipal
Corporation.
2. The appellant was the successful bidder for the leasehold rights of the
said Convention Centre and he was granted a lease for a period of three years.
An agreement to that effect was entered into on 10.11.2023. When the appellant
applied for permission to locate the Cinema Theatre in the said Arangam, the
same was objected to by the Thanjavur Municipal Corporation on various
grounds. The objections raised by the Thanjavur Municipal Corporation were
the primary grounds for rejection of the approval by the District Collector.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. This Court found that none of the objections were sustainable. The
Writ Court in Paragraph 10 of the order held as follows:-
''10. I hold that the second respondent is not
justified in raising the objections. The Corporation is a
state instrumentality. It must exhibit fairness in all its
dealings. It cannot conduct itself as a private landlord.
Having received a huge amount from the petitioner, the
Corporation cannot put spokes in the wheel. In this view of
the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first
respondent will bear in mind all the other relevant factors
and pass an appropriate order within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This
writ petition stands allowed on these terms. No costs.''
4. The Writ Court, however, directed the District Collector to pass orders
on the application afresh in view of the fact that he is a statutory authority to
issue Form – B under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957.
5. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order primarily
contending that the order of remand was not justified. This appeal gave the
cushion for the District Collector to sit over the decision and postpone the
issue. When the appeal came up before us earlier, we had required the
Commissioner of Thanjavur Municipal Corporation to be present in person. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeared before us on 25.09.2024 and on that day, he had agreed not to raise an
objection regarding non-registration of the lease deed. Surprisingly, the District
Collector, had, on 23.09.2024, issued a notice to the Commissioner inviting
objections. This, according to us, would amount to disobedience with the
orders of this Court.
6. When this Court had specifically overruled the objections raised by the
Commissioner, Thanjavur Corporation and directed the District Collector to
decide the matter on merits, the District Collector had no business to send the
notice to the Commissioner inviting objections.
7. We, therefore, direct the District Collector to pass appropriate orders
within a period of 10 days from today. The District Collector shall not wait for
any objections from the Corporation or take note of any objections that may be
received, in view of the fact that this Court had held that the Corporation has no
right to object and that order has not been challenged by the Corporation. If
orders are not passed within 10 days, there will be a deemed approval in the
light of Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.M, J.) (S.M., J.)
22.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
smn2
Note:- Issue order copy on 23.10.2024.
To
1. The District Collector,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
2. The Commissioner,
Thanjavur Municipal Corporation,
Thanjavur.
3. The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
smn2
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
