MOHD. IBRAHIM KHAN & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 21-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,.._I A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
792 
MOHD. IBRAIDM KHAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF. MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
September 21, 1979 
[D. A. DESAI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
M. P. Cinema (Regulalio11) Act 1952, S. 5(3) & M . P. Cinema (Regulaiion) 
Rules 1972, Rules 3-6-0bjection not raised at the time of granting of no· 
objection certificate-Objection if could be raised at the time of renewal of 
quasi-permanent cinema licence. 
Administrative 'Law-Doctrine of natural justice-Administrative au1hority-
Whe1her under a duty to give notice and hear parties at every renewal o(licence 
- Whether under a d111y to hear all objectors. M.P, Cinema (Regulation) Act 
1952 S. 5(3). 
The third respondent made an application for the grant of a licence for a 
temporary cinema and the District Magistrate issued a no-objection certificate 
for a period of six months. Th.is licence was renewed twice but a subsequent 
application for renewal was turned down by the District 
Magistrate on the 
ground that the 'Paras Talkies' with a permaneht cinema licence in the locality 
which was hitherto closed had started functioning and, therefore, a renewal of 
the licence for a temporary cinema in the same locality would not be proper. 
fu appeal, the State Government granted respondent 3 a licence for a quasi-
permanent cinema. 
The appellants in their writ petition questioned the validity of the State 
Government's order on the ground that they were the residents of the locality 
l\;lld that they had objected to the grant/renewal of licence on the ground that 
there was a mosque, a madrasa and a temple in the vicinity of the place, where 
the cinema house was to be constructed and even though their objections were 
upheld by the licensing authority, the District Magistrate, they were not heard 
in the appeal preferred by the third respondent and therefore, the order of the 
first respondent, State of M.P. suffers from the vice of violation of the principll!S 
of natural justice. The High Court held that since the matter was left to the 
subjective satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government on being 
satisfied that there was no impediment to the grant of such a licence, was per- ; 
fectly justified in granting the same, and that this was not a fit case for inter-
ference by the High Court. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants, 
that as objectors they should have been heard and the decision arrived at by the 
State Government in appeal at their back was violative of t~ principles of 
natural justice and the order granting licence for a quasi-permanent cinema by 
the State Government was invalid. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 
( 
H 
(per Desai, J.) 
t. There is, nothing in the M.P. Cinema 
(Regulation) Act, 1952 or 
th~ 
M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules ' 1972 which require the liceming authority 
-. 
IBRAHIM KHAN V. M. P. STATE 
793 
to invite objections before grant of a quasi-pe~manent cinema 
licence. The 
A 
right to object is at the initial stage when a no-objection certificate is applied 
·for by the intending applicant for such a certificate. But there is no provision 
for inviting objections when 
the application is 
for a 
permanent or quasi-
permanent cinema. licence or a touring cinema licence. [800 G] 
2. There is no provision in the Act or Rules which requires advertisement 
of such an application inviting objections and consideration of the objections 
B 
before grant of a cinema. licence. [800 H] 
3 . . When an application for no-ebjection certificate is m'~de, objections have 
to be invited in the prescribed manner. There can conceivably be hundreds of 
objections. There is no question of glving a personal hearing to each objector. 
If after taking into consideration the objections a no-objection certificate is 
... granted, there ends the matter subject, of course, to any properly constit1,1ted 
C 
-.legal proceedings, conceivably a writ petition under Article 226. [800 CJ 
4. Sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act is unambiguous when it provides for an 
appeal only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the decision of the licens-
ing authority refusing licence. 
A fortiori . every objector to grant of a no-objec-
tion certificate is not entitled to file an appeal if such certificate is granted re-
jecting his objections. Nor in an appeal by the aggrieved person within the 
meaning of s. 5(3) every objector to the grant of a no-objection certificate 
is entitled to be joined as a party respondent or th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.