MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENCING) AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 30-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENCING) AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981: 
Amended Rule 2-Licencing authority-Consultation with local body 
C within whose juristliction the cinema building is situated-Parties to adduce 
necessary evidence before the High Court in the pending suif-Building to be 
pulled down if found not in confonnity with the bye-laws-As undertaken 
equities not to be claimed-Any constTuction made not to bind the co-
owners, as they are not consenting parties. 
D 
A Notification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 was published in 
the Gazette dated 3.5.1954, malting amendments to the Act. As per 
amended Rules 2 of the Act, the local body in relation to licensing of any 
place for cinematography exhibitions would be the Municipal Corporation 
of Delhi (M.C.D.), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), New Delhi 
E Municipal Committee, Cantonment Board as the case may be in whose 
jurisdiction the place for clnemalograph exhibition is situated. The DDA 
bas to be consulted by the licensing authority and not the PWD, in respect 
of the Cinema building in question and the High Court resolved the Issue 
accordingly, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi preferred the present 
appeals. The SLP and Contempt Petitions are connected matters. 
F 
Disposing of the matters, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the change in law, the MCD no longer remains 
to be a consulting authority. The owners of the lands, who claim that they 
are the co-owners, have a grievance that the respondents were proceeding 
G with the construction without their consent, and so, they sought to be 
impleaded as party-defendants in the suit before the Division Bench. Since 
their application is pending before the Single Judge, no order was passed. 
Needless to mention that the application pending before the Single Judge 
would be disposed of as expeditiously as possible for impleading the co-
H owners as party-defendants lo the suit. As rightly observed by the Division 
110 
M.C.D. v. COMR. OF POLICE 
111 
Bench, any construction made by the plaintiff, does not bind the co- owners A 
because they are not consenting parties and it will be subject to the result 
in the suit. (112-F-G-H, 113-A] 
2. As regards the claim of DDA that no reference was made to it for 
approval of the construction plan and, therefore, it is not bound by the 
approval granted by the PWD. It would be open to the plaintiff tt> take B 
appropriate action according to law. [113-A-B] 
3. Pursuant to this Court's order of May 14, 1993, the MCD bad 
inspected and made a statement that the construction carried on by the 
plaintiff was not in conformity with the bye- laws and to that effect the 
statement and report were placed on record. It is open to the parties in the C 
suit to place the evidence whether the construction is in accordance with 
the relevant rules and, if it is not, the construction made in contravention 
would be pulled down without claiming any equities as undertaken by the · 
plaintiff's counsel. (113-D-E] 
D 
[The Contempt Petition tiled by the owners, was permitted to be 
withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.] (113-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos: 6610-11 
of 1994. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.93 of the Delhi High Court 
in F.A.O. (OS) No. 233/92 & C.W.No. 697 of 1978. 
With 
S.L.P. (C) No. 10137/93 & Contempt Petition No. 185 of 1994. 
Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Binu Tamta and Kailash Vasdev for the Appel-
!ant. 
K.K. Lahiri, K.R. Nagaraja, S.N. Terdal and B.K. Prasad for the 
Respondent No. 1. 
Aron Jaitley, Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Suparna Sarna, Naveen 
Chawla and S.S. Jauhar for the Respondent. 
V.B. Saharya for the D.D.A. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
G 
H 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The Notification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, issued by the 
Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published in the 
gazette, dated May 3, 1994, has been placed before us. Rule 2 mentions 
that: 
"2. Amendment of Rule 2 - In the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 
1981 [(hereinafter called the "Principal Rules" in Rule 2 for the 
existing clause (2)], the following shall be substituted : 
'Local Body in relation to the licensing of any place for 
cinematograph exhibitions, means Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 
Delhi Development
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.