Skip to content


S. Kalam Vs. the Secretary to Government Home Department, Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 4075 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Mad430
ActsMadras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1965
AppellantS. Kalam
RespondentThe Secretary to Government Home Department, Madras and anr.
Excerpt:
- - order 1. on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy as a member of the public to take such action as is available to him in law, so as to apprise the licensing authorities under the madras cinemas (regulation) act, 1965, not to issue or to renew a licence for cinematographic exhibition, this petition has to fail......they are the persons primarily competent to deal with an application for renewal of a licence of a cinema theatre for purposes of exhibition of cinematographic films. at this stage, this court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the licensing authorities, for if such rule is issued, it would be obviously asking the licensing authorities to follow the law and decide the application for renewal. this, no doubt, would be borne in mind by the licensing authorities and no direction need be given to them for the purpose.3. it is also stated that the petitioner has obtained an injunction in a civil court against the theatre owners from allowing such a congregating to gather in front of the petitioner's shop. in these circumstances i am unable to exercise my discretion to issue a writ of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. On the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy as a member of the public to take such action as is available to him in law, so as to apprise the licensing authorities under the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1965, not to issue or to renew a licence for cinematographic exhibition, this petition has to fail.

2. The petitioner is a dealer in textiles and is having his place adjacent to Roxy Theatre, in Purasawalkam High Road, Madras. According to the petitioner, people visiting the cinema house assemble in front of his shop in a queue to purchase tickets for entry into the cinema house and this assemblage is causing a nuisance to the petitioner and his trade. It is on this ground that the petitioner has come up to this court for a writ of Mandamus directing the licensing authorities to forbear from renewing the licence issued to the respondent. Though this is in the nature of a quia timet action which is of a continuing nature, yet this court cannot entertain a petition because the licensing authorities are in seisin of the matter and they are the persons primarily competent to deal with an application for renewal of a licence of a cinema theatre for purposes of exhibition of cinematographic films. At this stage, this court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus to the licensing authorities, for if such rule is issued, it would be obviously asking the licensing authorities to follow the law and decide the application for renewal. This, no doubt, would be borne in mind by the licensing authorities and no direction need be given to them for the purpose.

3. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained an injunction in a civil court against the theatre owners from allowing such a congregating to gather in front of the petitioner's shop. In these circumstances I am unable to exercise my discretion to issue a writ of Mandamus, which is not the proper remedy in the instant case.

4. The writ petition is dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //