Gritzman appealed to the magistrate.
The Borough Council companysidered and decided in favour of Greenbaum and refused Gritzman who was left with his pitches 4 and 8.
3 herein invited the opinions of the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Executive Engineer Roads and F, Buildings, and the District Superintendent of Police.
In the affidavit filed in reply, by the District Magistrate on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4 a preliminary objection was taken that the appellants had numberlocus standi to file the writ petition because their ,.
2, in Gulston St. became vacant.
On 16 12 1970, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to treat the No objection Certificate granted to Respondents 1 and 2 as illegal, void and ineffectual They further asked for an injunction restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from utilising the certificate for the purpose of building a cinema theatre.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 11th November, 1971 of the Gujarat High Court in F.A. No.
4 that the proposed site was number fit for the location of a cinema house.
He recommended that the No objection Certificate should be refused.
He companyld number appeal against the grant of a licence to Greenbaum, but only against the refusal to grant a licence to himself.
These three authorities opined that they had numberobjection to the grant of the Certificate applied for.
Accordingly, the District Magistrate granted the No objection Certificate on 27 11 1970 to Res.
The State Government did number agree with the recommendation of the District Magistrate and directed the latter to grant the Certificate.
2035 of 1971.
98 in the town of Mehmadabad.
Special Civil Application No.
Thereupon, both Gritzman and Greenbaum applied for the grant of a licence, each wanted o to give up his own existing licence and get a new licence for pitch No.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.
1 and 2.
Before the magistrate, the Borough Council opposed him.
category of an aggrieved person entitled to a writ of certiorari ex debito justitiae.
912 of 1970, decided by Gujarat High Court on 25/27th Nov. 1 970.
The main grounds of challenge were that the impugned Certificate had been issued by the District Magistrate, number in the exercise of his own discretion with due regard to the principles indicated in the Bombay Cinematograph Act, 1918 for short, the Act and the Rules, but mechanically at the dictates of the State Government that Rules S and 6, according to an earlier judgment of the High Court being ultra vires and void, the Government had numberpower to grant or refuse A the No Objection Certificate that such power belonged to the District Magistrate who was the Licensing Authority, and had to be exercised by him objectively, in a quasi judicial manner in accordance with the statutory principles since it was number so exercised, the grant of the Certificate in question suffers from lack of jurisdiction.
The District Magistrate visited the site on 27 7 1970 Thereafter he submitted a report to the State Government Res.
N. Tarkunde and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for the Appellant.
The District Magistrate Res.
Some of the objections were that a Muslim graveyard, a Durgah, a companypost depot, a school and public latrines were situated in the vicinity of the proposed site.
A. Shah and M. N. Shroff and Girish Chandra for Respondent Nos.
Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta for Respondents 1 2.
The District Magistrate then numberified in the prescribed Form, the substance of the application by publication in newspapers, inviting objections to the grant of a No objection Certificate.
They made an application under Rule 3 of the Rules to the District Magistrate, Kaira, for the grant of a Certificate that there was numberobjection to the location of a cinema theatre at this site.
The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of a site, bearing Survey No.
158484 of 1 970.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films, is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a No objection Certificate, granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 for short, the Rules by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave.
In response thereto, several persons lodged objections, but the appellants, who are the proprietors of a cinema house, situated on Station Road, Mehmadabad, were number among those objectors.
