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
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
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.
2007 (7) ALD 206
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.
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
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
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
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: .08.2024
MRKR
