Thereafter a quasi permanent cinema licence was granted.
The order impugned by the third respondent in the appeal before the State Government is Annexure E dated 29th June 1977.
Simultaneously, a certified companyy of the original order in Hindi was shown to us at the hearing of the appeal which clearly H. shows that a number objection certificate was granted limited to the duration of six months.
This licence was renewed twice over up to and inclusive of 30th September 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 6 3 1978 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No.
An advertisement was issued in Nai Duniya dated 5th January 1976 by the licensing authority that an application for a temporary cinema licence akin to quasi permanent cinema licence has been received and that any one who desires that numberobjection certificate should number he given may file his objections.
Magistrate was impressed by the objections and, therefore, turned down the request for temporary cinema licence, in an appeal against this order preferred by the third respondent, the appellants as objectors should have been heard and the decision arrived at by the State Government appeal at their back was violative of the principles of natural justice and the order granting licence for quasi permanent cinema by the State Government is invalid.
A perusal of this particular order would show that initial application for numberobjection certificate was made by the third respondent on 5th December 1975.
Respondent 3 carried the matter in appeal to the State Government which by its order dated 27th December 1977 granted a licence for a quasi permanent cinema under the M.P. Cinemas Regulation Rules to the third respondent Present petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 questioning the validity of the aforementioned order of the State Government companyceding, inter alia, that they were the residents of the locality and that they had objected to the grant renewal of licence on the ground that there is a mosque a madrasa and a temple in the vicinity or the place where the cinema house is to be companystructed, and even though their objections were upheld by the licensing authority, the District Magistrate, they were number heard in the appeal preferred by the third respondent and, therefore the order of the first respondent State of Madhya Pradesh suffers, inter alia, from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice.
After companysidering those objections numberobjection certificate was granted by order dated 10th February G. 1976.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This licence was renewed upto 30th June 1976 and there was a further renewal up to 30th September 1976.
Subsequently by the impugned order dated 29th June 1977 this licence was number renewed.
3 The following Judgments were delivered DESAI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order date 27th December 1977 made by the State of Madhya Pradesh granting a licence for a quasi permanent cinema to respondent number 3 Prem Narayan son of Ganpatlal Chouksey, proprietor, Chitra Talkies, Lalbagh, Burhanpur P. against which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners was dismissed in limine by a speaking order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 6th March 1978.
K. Gambhir for Respondents 1 and 2 L. Sanghi, R. K. Jain and R. Ramachandran for Respondent No.
A subsequent application for renewal was turned down by the Distt.
B. Pai and S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant.
1199 of 1978.
Third respondent made an application on 5th December 1975 for grant of a licence for a temporary cinema and the District Magistrate having jurisdiction issued a numberobjection certificate vide his order dated 10th February 1976 for a period of six months.
Magistrate, the licensing authority, and if the Distt.
Original file was called.
Mr. G. B. Pai, learned companynsel who appeared for the petitioners, companytended that if before the grant of a quasi permanent cinema licence to the third respondent the appellants filed their objections which were taken into companysideration by the Distt.
The High Court was of the opinion that District Magistrate was number influenced by the fact that there was a mosque, and a temple in the vicinity of the place where the proposed cinema house was to be companystructed but he was influenced by an extraneous companysideration that a cinema having a permanent cinema licence having been re opened in the locality there was numberneed for a cinema house with a temporary licence and that it being a matter left to the subjective satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government on being satisfied that there was numberimpediment to the grant of such a licence, was perfectly justified in granting the same and, therefore, it is number a fit case for the interference of the High Court.
The appellants thereupon filed this appeal by special leave.
109/78.
