LexJASBHAL MOTIBHAI DESAI versus ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
58
JASBHAl MOTIBHAI DESAI
v.
ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED & ORS.
December 19, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
Constit11tio11 of India-Art. 226-Scope of the po-.ver of writ of "certiorari".
Rufe of practicc-U.\·efulness of L"11glish decisions and when can be
co11-
sidered.
"Aggrie1 1ed pcrsons"-Tests for deciding.
"Locus slandi"-Wbether a ri1·(t/ ill trade and an
owner of an
e.xi.Hing
cine111a theatre is a1t "aggrieved person" within the meaning of s. SA· of the
Bon1hay Ci11e111a Rules, 1954 e11titfi11r.: hi111 to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction
"ex-dcbito iustitiae" of the Hi~h Co11rt for q1unhit1J.? the order granting a "no
objection certificate" under rule 6 of the Bo111bay Cineina Rules, 1954.
Danu111111 sine injuria-Principle of.
Under tJ1e Bon1bay Cinema R11les, 1954, the District Magistrate, after inviting
the objections under r. 4 from the public and also the opinions of the District
Superintendent of Police, Chairman Nagar Panchayat and the Executive Engineer
(Roads & Buildings), and <1ftcr considering them. may grant under rule 5 a
"no objection certificate" to the appellant'> for the location of a cinema theatre
under his jurisdiction, or in case of his not granting the certificate, he must refer
under s. 6 of the Rules, the matter to the State Government with his reasons,
therefor.
In respect of the application of the respondents, not being satisfie<l of the
opinions of the District Superintendent of Police, Nagar Panchayat Chairman,
Executive Engineer (Roads & Buildings) filvouring the grant of c:ertificate to the
appellants herein, the District 1vlagistrate personally visited the site and sub-
n1itted n report to the State Gov(:rn1ncnt. Lo the effect that the proposed site Wtls
not fit for the location of a cinen1a house.
On the Jircctions of he St<1h::
Government, which did not agree with the report submitted by him, the District
~Iagistrate granted the certificate to the respondents.
The appellant being a rival in the cine1na trade, though he <lid' not prefer
any objections at the time when they were called for, filed a writ petition in th~
Bombay High Court alleging that ( i) the impngned certificate issued' by the
District Magistrate \Vas not in the exercise of his own discretion and \Vith duc-
regard to the principles in the Bombay Cinematographic Act, 1918 and the Rules
and (ii) Since as a Licensing Authority, the power has not be objectively exer-
cised in a quasi judicial manner, the grunt of the certificate suffered from lack of
jurisdiction.
The f-ligh Court. dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no right
vested in the appellant, had been infringed or prejudiced or adversely affected as
,a direct consequence of the order impugned by hirn. and as such, he \Vas not
an ''aggrieved person" having a {oc11.\ s1a11di in the n1:iltcr.
On appeal by special leave to this Court, the appell;.1nt contende<l that (i)
apart from a right in common with the general public to obj'ect to the grant
before the District Magistrate, the appellant being a rival in the same trade had
It particular commercial interest to see that the permission was not granted to
another in contravention of la\v to start the same business, entitling him to a
\\Tit of certiorari ex-dehito iustitiae; and (ii) The concept of "aggrieved person"
being wide, any one who is personally interested and genuinely grieved by an
act of usurpation of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction on the part of an ad-
.i.ninistrative tribunal or body would fall within the category of an ·~aggrieved
•
'
•
•
•
1
J"ASBHAI DESAI V. ROSHAN KUMAR
5~
person" even if such usurpation or lack of jurisdiction had not resulted in in-
fringement of a legal right or legal interest vested in him; nor would such a
person be denied "locus standi'' for the· purpose of "certiorari" merely because he
had not lodged any objection or joined the proceedings before the tribunal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
I-lELD : ( 1) The founding fathers of the Constitution
have
designedly
-couched Article 226 in comprehensive phraseology to enable the High Court to
reach inju&tice, wher-cver it is found.
In ;1 sense, the scope and nature of t11e'
power conferred by the Article is wider 1han that exercised by the writ courts.
in England .
Dwarka 1\.'at/J v. /11co111e Tax Officer. l•:a11p11r l1965] 3 SCR 563, referred to.
(2) The adoption ofExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.