STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus M/S. KRISHNA CINEMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 10-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

110 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
v. 
M/S. KRISHNA CINEMA AND ORS. 
September 10, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act 11 of 1953 and Rules-Rule 89 
tloes not pl'ohibit construction of cinema building before grant of no ob-
jection certificate by Licensing 
Autho1·ity-Directioti given 
by . State 
Government to Licensing Authority. vitiated if there is no application of 
mind to facts-Appellate order under s. 8A must give 1-easo11,~Use of 
words 'absolute discretion' in s. 5(2) of Chapter II does not invest State 
Government with arbitrary power. 
The Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act 11 of 1953 and the rules made 
thereunder were made applicable to the territory of the State of Gujarat by 
the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. Under s. 3 of Act 11 of 1953 films 
can be exhibited only in licensed premises. Bys. 4(3) the District Magis-
trate is, where there is no Commissioner df Police, the Licensing Authority, 
By s. 5 the Licensing Authority is subject to the control d the State 
Government .. A person aggrieyed by the order of the Licensing Authority 
has under s. SA a right of appeal to the State Government Rule 5(2) 
authorises the Government on consideration of the report of the Licensing 
Authority, in its absolute discretion to grant permission for the issue of a 
no objection certificate to the applicant or to refuse to grant the same. 
By r. 89 it is enacted that no person shall put up any building or structure 
or convert existing premises for being used as a cinema except with the 
permission in writing of the Licensing Authority. 
The respondents carried on the business of exhibiting dnematograph 
films in a theatre named Krishna Cinema at Rajkot. 
On· May 14, 1963 
they applied to the District Magistrate for a 'no objection certificate' to the 
user of a building to construction, as an 'annexe.' to the Krishna Cinema. 
The Magistrate sanctioned the construction of the building and the plans 
submitted by the respondents were approved by the Executive Engineer. 
On completion of the bujlding the . Executive Engineer recommended the 
grant of a 'no objection certificate'.. Thereafter the District Magistrate 
in his report of the State Government suggesting that a no objection certi-
ficate be granted even though the construction of the building before the 
~rant of the certificate was against the rules. The Government of Gujarat 
intimated by a letter dated July 9, 1964 written by the Addi. Distiict 
Magistrate, Rajkot that the application filed by the respondents could not 
be granted. An appea1 filed against the order communicated by the Addi. 
District Magistrate to the State Government was rejected. The respondent 
filed a writ petition in the High Court which succeeded. The 'State of 
Gujarat appealed to this Court relying on r. 89 for their contention that 
the building was constructed in violation of the rules and, therefore, the 
refusal of a 'no objection certificate' was justified. Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) Rule 89 authorises the Licensing Authority to allow con-
version of an existing building into a cinernatograph theatre. Therefore 
the completion of the building before the Government considered the te-
quest to a 'no objection certific~te' did not cons.titute a .bar to the e:'erci~e 
of Jurisdiction to grant the certificate and District Magistrate was nght m 
his view that the certificate applied for must be granted. [115 B-Cl. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
JI 
G 
GUJARAT v. KRISHNA CINEMA (Shah, /.) 
111 
The 'annexe' complied with all the requirements of the rules, but by 
letter dated July 9, 1964 the Licensing Authority under instructions of the 
State Government informed the respondent that application for ~onstruct· 
in& a permanent annexe near the present Krisha Cinema and. for obtain-
ing a 'no objection certificate' was not admissible. 
The building had 
been constructed several months before the date on which the letter was 
written. -The contents of the letter created an impreosion that in the 
view of the authorities the building had still to be constructed, It was 
clear .that the authority did not apply its mind to the application. It did 
not consider whether a building which was already in existence should 
be allowed to be converted into a cinematograph theatre. [116 A-Cl 
Further in djsmissing the appeal preferred to ihe State Government it 
was recorded that the Government did 'not see any reasons to change

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.