Skip to content


K. Rangaswamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMedia and Communication
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1983)2MLJ149
AppellantK. Rangaswamy
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....of the delay by the government under the first proviso to rule 47-a (1). in this case, the 90 days period has ended on 15th november, 1979, and the revision petition has actually been filed on 4th february, 1980, with a delay of 139 days. so long as the power of the government to entertain a revision is limited to a period of 90 days from the date of the appellate order, the government have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition in this case which has been filed beyond 90 days. in this case, since the jurisdiction of the government has been invoked by the fourth respondent by filing a revision petition it cannot be said that the government has invoked in suo motu power. therefore, there is no escape from the application of the time limit fixed under rule 47-a (1). in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. The petitioner herein applied for a no objection certificate from the Collector of Coimbatore for locating a semi permanent cinema in Gudalur on 7th September, 1978. The said application for no objection certificate was duly published. No objections were received for the issue of a no objection certificate applied for by the petitioner within 14th October, 1978, the date fixed for the receipt of objections. However, the fourth respondent filed his objections on 8th March, 1979. Since the objections were received beyond 14th October, 1978, the date fixed for filing objections, the Collector rejected the objections of the fourth respondent and granted the no objection certificate to the petitioner on 25th March, 1979.

2. As against the order granting the no objection certificate, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which after considering the merits dismissed the appeal on 9th August, 1979. Thereafter the fourth respondent filed a revision petition to the State Government under Section 9-B of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. The said revision petition was entertained by the Government and after giving notice to the petitioner herein and after hearing his representations, the Government considered the merits of the case and set aside the grant of no objection certificate to the petitioner and remanded the entire proceedings before the Collector for a fresh consideration by its order dated 8th August, 1980. The said revisional order of the Government dated 8th August, 1980, which is in favour of the fourth respondent is being challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. Two contentions have been urged by the petitioner in this writ petition. One is that the State Government cannot entertain a revision petition beyond 90 days from the date of the order of the Board of Revenue, sought to be revised, and therefore, the Government has acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The second contention is that since the fourth respondent filed his objections beyond the period of 15 days after the publication of the application for a no objection certificate, he cannot be taken to be an aggrieved person as has been held in very many decisions of this Court.

4. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent would, however, contend that merely because the objections have not been filed within 15 days of the publication of the application for a no objection certificate the fourth respondent cannot be said to have been disabled from filing his objections, that so long as the fourth respondent's objection dated 8th March, 1979 was before the Collector, when the final order was passed, his objection should have been considered by the Collector and the non-consideration of his objection by the Collector vitiated the grant of a no objection certificate by the Collector and that therefore the order of the Government setting aside the orders of the Collector is quite equitable and just. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent also contends that it is always open to the Government to entertain a revision even if it is filed beyond 90 days as the Government has also the power to invoke its revisional jurisdiction suo motu and no time limit is fixed for exercising the said suo motu power of revision.

5. Therefore, the first and foremost question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the Government could entertain the fourth respondent's revision petition which has been filed after a delay of 139 days beyond the 30 days prescribed for filing a revision petition. For deciding this question the statutory provisions dealing with the limitations have to be considered. Section 9-B of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, enables the Government to exercise its revisional power either suo motu or on application by a party. However, the proviso to Section 9-B (1) says that the revision petition to the Government shall be preferred within such time as may be prescribed. The prescription is made under Rule 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules. Sub-rule (1) of that Rule is as follows:

The Government may entertain an application for revision against the decision of the appellate authority under Section 5(7) of Section 9-A(1) of the Act. Such application for revision shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the appellate authority:

Provided that the Government may admit an application for revision preferred within a period of two months after the expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days aforesaid, if sufficient cause is shown for not preferring the application for revision within the prescribed period:

Provided further that in computing the periods aforesaid, the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the appellate authority shall be excluded:

Provided also that, where an application for revision is presented within the prescribed period of thirty days aforesaid, but is returned by the Government for re-presentation in the prescribed manner, and if such an application for revision is re-presented in the manner prescribed and within the date if any, specified by the Government for the re-presentation of the application for revision, the application for revision so presented shall be deemed to have been presented within the prescribed time for the purpose of this rule.

Sub-rule (1) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing a revision petition before the Government against an order of the appellate authority. The first proviso to that sub-rule says that the Government can entertain an application for revision preferred beyond a period of 30 days if the revision has been filed within a period of two months after the expiry of the 30 days' period fixed under the main rule (1) if sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not preferring the application within 90 days. This Rule 47-A (1) enables the State Government to condone the delay in filing the revision upto 60 days in addition to the 30 days prescribed for filing the revision. Thus the Government can entertain revision petition in its discretion if it was filed within 90 days in the aggregate. The Government has no power as per the said rule to admit a revision petition which has been filed beyond 90 days from the date of the order of the appellate authority. No doubt it is true that the second proviso to Rule 47-A enables the computation of the period of limitation from the date of service of the appellate order on the revision petitioner. In this case, the date of the appellate order on the fourth respondent was admittedly 16th August, 1979. Therefore, the fourth respondent could file a revision petition within 90 days therefrom, with an application for condonation of the delay by the Government under the first proviso to Rule 47-A (1). In this case, the 90 days period has ended on 15th November, 1979, and the revision petition has actually been filed on 4th February, 1980, with a delay of 139 days. So long as the power of the Government to entertain a revision is limited to a period of 90 days from the date of the appellate order, the Government have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition in this case which has been filed beyond 90 days. In this case, since the jurisdiction of the Government has been invoked by the fourth respondent by filing a revision petition it cannot be said that the Government has invoked in suo motu power. Therefore, there is no escape from the application of the time limit fixed under Rule 47-A (1). In this view, the order passed by the Government and impugned in this writ petition should be taken to have been passed without jurisdiction. Hence it has to be quashed. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order is quashed. No costs.

6. In view of the fact that the revisional order passed by the Government is held to be without jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to go into the second question as to whether the fourth respondent is an aggrieved person or not.


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