http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: MOHD. IBRAHIM KHAN  ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/09/1979

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  517            1979 SCC  (4) 458

ACT:      M.P. Cinema  (Regulation) Act  1952,  S.  5(3)  &  M.P. Cinema (Regulation)  Rules  1972,  Rules  3-6-Objection  not raised at  the time of granting of no objection certificate- Objection if  could be  raised at  the time  of  renewal  of quasi-permanent cinema licence.      Administrative   Law-Doctrine   of   natural   justice- Administrative authority-Whether under a duty to give notice and hear parties at every renewal of licence-Whether under a duty to  hear all objectors. M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act 19 S. 5(3).

HEADNOTE:      The third  respondent made an application for the grant of a  licence  for  a  temporary  cinema  and  the  District Magistrate issued a no-objection certificate for a period of six months.  This licence was renewed twice but a subsequent application for  renewal was  turned down  by  the  District Magistrate on  the ground  that the  ’Paras Talkies’  with a permanent cinema  Licence in the locality which was hitherto closed had  started functioning and, therefore, a renewal of the licence  for a  temporary cinema  in the  same  locality would not be proper. In appeal, the State Government granted respondent 3 a licence for a quasi-permanent cinema.      The appellants  in their  writ petition  questioned the validity of  the State Government’s order on the ground that they were  the residents  of the  locality and that they had objected to  the grant/renewal of licence on the ground that there was  a mosque,  a madrasa and a temple in the vicinity of the  place, where  the cinema house was to be constructed and  even   though  their  objections  were  upheld  by  the licensing authority,  the District Magistrate, they were not heard in  the appeal  preferred by  the third respondent and therefore, the  order of the first respondent, State of M.P. suffers from  the vice  of violation  of the  principles  of natural justice.  The High  Court held that since the matter was  left  to  the  subjective  satisfaction  of  the  State Government, the  State Government  on being  satisfied  that there was  no impediment to the grant of such a licence, was perfectly justified  in granting the same, and that this was not a fit case for interference by the High Court.      In the  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the  appellants, that  as objectors they should have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

heard and the decision arrived at by the State Government in appeal at  their back  was violative  of the  principles  of natural justice  and the order granting licence for a quasi- permanent cinema by the State Government was invalid.      Dismissing the appeal, ^ HELD: ( per Desai, J.)      1. There  is nothing  in M.P.  Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952 or  the  M.P.  Cinema  (Regulation)  Rules  1972  which require the licensing authority 793 to invite  objections  before  grant  of  a  quasi-permanent cinema licence.  The right to object is at the initial stage when a  no-objection  certificate  is  applied  for  by  the intending applicant  for such a certificate. But there is no provision for  inviting objections  when the  application is for a  permanent or  quasi-permanent  cinema  licence  or  a touring cinema licence. [800 G]      2. There  is no  provision in  the Act  or Rules  which requires  advertisement  of  such  an  application  inviting objections and  consideration of the objections before grant of a cinema licence. [800 H]      3. When  an application for no-objection certificate is made, objections  have  to  be  invited  in  the  prescribed manner. There  can conceivably  be  hundred  of  objections. There is  no question  of giving  a personal hearing to each objector. If  after taking into consideration the objections a no-objection certificate is granted, there ends the matter subject,  of  course,  to  any  properly  constituted  legal proceedings, conceivably  a writ petition under Article 226. [800 Cl      4. Sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act is unambiguous when it provides for  an appeal  only at  the instance  of a  person aggrieved  by   the  decision  of  the  licensing  authority refusing licence.  A fortiori  every objector  to grant of a no-objection certificate  is not  entitled to file an appeal if such certificate is granted rejecting his objections. Nor in an  appeal by  the aggrieved person within the meaning of s. 5(3)  every objector  to  the  grant  of  a  no-objection certificate is  entitled to  be joined as a party respondent or that  each objector  is entitled  to notice of hearing of the appeal. [800 D-E]      5. The  grievance of  the appellants  is without merits because initially  when no-objection certificate was applied for they  did not object and one who has not objected cannot subsequently make a grievance. [800 F]      Jasbhai Motibhai  Desai v.  Roshan Kumar,  Haji  Bashir Ahmed & others [1976] 3 SCR 58. referred to.      6. A  right to  notice by reason of any rule of natural justice, which  a party  may establish,  must depend for its existence upon  proof of  an. interest  which is bound to be injured by  not hearing the party claiming to be entitled to a notice  and to  be heard before an order is passed. If the duty to  give notice and to hear the party is not mandatory, the actual  order passed  on a  matter must be shown to have injuriously affected  the interest  of the  party which  was given no notice of the matter. [1801 C-D]      Cosmosteels Private  Ltd. v.  Jairam Das  Gupta &  Ors. [1978] 2 SCR 422 at 431, referred to      7. There  is no  substance in the grievance that before granting renewal of quasi-permanent cinema licence the State Government in  the appeal  filed by the third respondent had not heard  them and  that such  a decision  was rendered  in violation of the principles of natural justice. [801 E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    In  the  instance  case,  the  application  for  a  no- objection certificate  and granting  of the  same had passed muster long  before,  and  appellants  had  not  raised  any objection to the grant of no-objection certificate. When the present appellants  objected to  the  renewal  of  a  quasi- permanent cinema licence it was not the 794 stage for grant of a no-objection certificate but it was the stage of  renewal of  quasi-permanent licence  subsequent to the stage  of granting  of a  no objection certificate, when there was no statutory obligation in the licensing authority to invite  objections nor  were the  appellants entitled  to file objections  and nor  were they  entitled to  be  heard. [801 A-B] (per Pathak J. concurring)      1. Rules  3 to  6 of the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules 1972, relate  to the  grant of a "No objection" certificate. The Rules  contemplate the  filing of  objections  by  local residents. That  is the  stage at  which opposition  to  the establishment  of   a  cinema   at  the   proposed  side  is specifically  provide   for.   Any   person   opposing   the establishment of  a cinema  at the proposed location must do so before a ’No-objection’ certificate is granted. [802 B-C]      In the  instant case,  the appellants  did not file any objections opposing  the establishment  of a  cinema A  "No- objection certificate"  was granted to the third respondent. When the  third respondent applied for a cinema licence, the appellants for the first time opposed the application on the grounds that  there was  a mosque,  a madras and a temple in the vicinity.  Inasmuch as  these grounds  were available to them during  the proceedings  for considering the grant of a ’No-objection’  certificate,  and  they  did  not  file  any objection, they  cannot now be permitted to plead a right to oppose the  grant of a cinema licence. Had they, opposed the grant of  the ’no-objection’ certificate and their objection had make  out a  good case,  it is  possible that  the  ’no- objection’ certificate  would have been refused, and in that event the  applicant would  not have  applied for  a  cinema licence. [802 D-F]       2.  The question  whether a person who has objected to the grant  of a  "NO objection certificate" certificate when that grant  was under  consideration can subsequently oppose the grant  of a  cinema licence on the same grounds which he took against a ’no-objection’ certificate left open. [802 H- 803 A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1199 of 1978.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 6-3-1978  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 109/78.       G. B. Pai and S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant.       S. K. Gambhir for Respondents 1 and 2       G.  L. Sanghi,  R. K.  Jain and  R.  Ramachandran  for Respondent No. 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 no.  3 Prem  Narayan son  of Ganpatlal Chouksey, proprietor,  Chitra  Talkies,  Lalbagh,  Burhanpur (M.P.) against which a petition under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

795      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.      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   no objection certificate  vide his  order dated  10th  February 1976 for  a period  of six  months. This licence was renewed upto 30th  June 1976  and there  was a further renewal up to 30th September  1976. A  subsequent application  for renewal was turned  down by the Distt. Magistrate by his order dated 29th June  1977  on  the  ground  that  Paras  Talkies  with permanent cinema  licence which  was closed,  has  now  been functioning in the locality and, therefore, a renewal of the licence for  a temporary  cinema in  the same locality would not be  proper. 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  conceding, 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 constructed, and even though their objections were upheld by the licensing authority, the District Magistrate,  they were  not  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.  The High  Court was  of the  opinion  that District Magistrate  was not  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 constructed but he  was influenced by an extraneous consideration that a cinema having  a permanent  cinema licence  having been  re- opened in  the locality there was no need 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  no impediment to  the grant  of such  a licence,  was perfectly justified in  granting the  same and, therefore, it is not a fit case  for  the  interference  of  the  High  Court.  The appellants thereupon filed this appeal by special leave.      Mr. G.  B. Pai,  learned counsel  who appeared  for the petitioners, contended  that if before the grant of a quasi- permanent cinema 796 licence to  the third  respondent the appellants filed their objections which were taken into consideration by the Distt. Magistrate, the  licensing  authority,  and  if  the  Distt. 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.      Before we examine the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants  it is  necessary to  glance at  the relevant provisions of  M.P Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (’Act’ for short). Section  3 imposes  a restriction  on exhibition  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

means of  cinematograph at  any place  other than a licensed place under  the Act  in compliance with the restrictions or conditions imposed  by such licence. Section 4 nominates the Distt. Magistrate  as the  licensing  authority.  Section  5 provides for  conditions subject  to which  licence  may  be granted. Sub-s.  (3) of  s. 5  provides for an appeal at the instance  of  a  person  aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  a licensing authority  refusing to  grant a  licence under the Act to  the State  Government within  the  prescribed  time. Section 6 confers power on the State Government or the local authority  to   suspend  exhibition   of  films.  Section  7 prescribes penalties  for breach  of the  provisions of  the Act. Section  8 confers  power to  revoke  a  licence  under certain circumstances.  Two  things  emerge  from  the  Act. Firstly, that  the detailed  provisions for  the grant  of a licence at  three distinct stages by the licensing authority in the  process of  licensing a  cinema house, viz., (i) no- objection certificate for the site on which the cinema house is  to   be  constructed;  (ii)  licence  for  the  building conforming to the rules where films are to be exhibited; and (iii) licence for exhibition of films, are made in the rules and there  is no  reference to  any of the three licences in the Act. Secondly, appeal is provided against the order of a licensing  authority  only  at  the  instance  of  a  person aggrieved  by   the  decision  of  the  licensing  authority refusing to  grant a  licence. The  Act does  not confer any right of appeal on a person who might have raised objections before the  licensing authority  against the  grant of a no- objection certificate or a licence, as the case may be. This last aspect  is very  relevant because the entire submission is based  on  a  contention  that  the  appellants  who  had objected to  the grant  of a no-objection certificate to the third  respondent   and  had  succeeded  in  persuading  the licensing authority  to refuse  the  grant  of  no-objection certificate to  the third  respondent,  yet  in  the  appeal preferred by the 797 third  respondent  under  sub-s.  (3)  of  s.  5  the  State Government did  not give  any opportunity  to the successful objectors and  decided the appeal at their back and thus the decision was  rendered in  violation of  the  principles  of natural justice.      Next a  reference to  the relevant rules of M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules,  1972 (’Rules’ for short), is necessary. Rule 3(2)  provides that  any person  desirous of erecting a cinema or  converting existing  premises into a cinema shall first make  public his  intention to  do so  by exhibiting a notice in  the prescribed  form on  a board  on the proposed site in  such position  that it can be plainly seen from the public thoroughfare  upon which  the site  of such  proposed cinema abuts.  This rule  also prescribes  the size  of  the board, the  language in which the notice is to be published, etc. Sub-rule  (3) of  rule 3  provides that  such a  person shall also give a similar notice in writing to the licensing authority,  viz.,   the  Distt.   Magistrate  and   make  an application  to   him  for   the  grant  of  a  no-objection certificate specifying therein whether the application is in respect of  a permanent  cinema or  a touring cinema. Rule 4 provides that  on receipt  of notice as envisaged by Rule 3, the licensing authority shall, at the cost of the applicant, notify  the   public  such   intention  in  such  manner  by publication in newspapers or otherwise that may deem fit for the purpose  of inviting  objections. It  is also obligatory for the licensing authority to issue a notification inviting objections specifying  therein the  period within  which the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

objections  shall  be  lodged.  Rule  5  provides  that  the licensing authority  shall on  the expiry  of the period for receipt of  the objections, submit a report to Government in the prescribed  form along with his recommendation whether a no-objection certificate  shall be  granted or not. Sub-rule (2) of rule 5 provides that Government may, on consideration o. the  report of  the licensing authority, grant permission for the  issue of  no-objection certificate to the applicant or may  refuse to  grant the  same.  Rule  6  provides  that without prejudice to the right of the licensing authority to refuse or  to grant  a cinema  licence under  rules 101  and 102’,  the   licensing  authority  may,  with  the  previous permission of  the government,  grant a  certificate to  the applicant that  there is no objection to the location of the cinema at  the site  notified by the applicant under rule 3. Sub-rule (2)  of rule  6 provides  that such  a no-objection certificate shall  be valid  for a  period of two years from the date  of issue  in the case of permanent cinemas and six months in  the case  of touring  cinemas. Chapter VII of the Rules provides for cinema licence. Rule 100 provides that an application for  a  cinema  licence  shall  be  accompanied, amongst others,  by a  copy of  the no-objection certificate issued under rule 6. Rule 101 confers power on the licensing authority 798 to grant  a cinema  licence on  being satisfied that all the relevant rules  have been  complied with and the licence may be granted  on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as the licensing authority may determine. There is a proviso to rule 101 which reads as under:           "Provided that  a touring cinema licence shall not      be beyond  the district of issue and ordinarily touring      cinema licences  shall not  be granted for places where      there is  already  a  permanent  or  a  quasi-permanent      cinema,  but   the  licensing   authority  may  in  its      discretion permit  a touring  cinema to  operate  at  a      place where  there is  already a  permanent  or  quasi-      permanent cinema  on occasions  such as fairs and melas      or when  the touring  cinema exhibits  films of  a kind      different from  those exhibited  by non-touring cinemas      such as  educational films  or where  it caters  for  a      different public".      In view  of the proviso, it would not be correct to say that District  Magistrate was  influenced by  an  extraneous consideration, namely,  re-opening of  Paras Cinema  with  a permanent cinema  licence while rejecting the application of third respondent  for renewal  of his  licence by  the order dated 29th  June 1977. Rule 104 provides that a 15 permanent cinema may be licenced for any period not exceeding one year and a  quasi-permanent cinema  or a  touring cinema  may  be licenced for any period not exceeding six months.      A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules extracted  above will  show  that  there  are  various stages through which an application for a cinema licence has to be  processed. It also transpires that the Rules envisage issuance of  a licence  for a  permanent cinema  and  quasi- permanent cinema as well as a touring cinema. Cinema in this context has  been defined  to  mean  any  place  wherein  an exhibition by means of cinematograph is given.      Rule 3  envisages construction of a cinema house and as a first  step, selection of a site where the cinema house is to be  located. Selection  of the  site and its clearance by the licensing  authority by  the issuance  of a no-objection certificate  is  an  important  step  to  be  taken  in  the direction  of   finally  constructing  a  cinema  house  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

obtaining a  licence for the same. In the facts of this case the application  is for  a quasi-permanent  cinema  licence. When any  person desires to erect a cinema meaning thereby a place where an exhibition by means of cinematograph is to be given, he must apply for a no-objection 799 certificate in respect of the site where the cinema house is to be  constructed. When such an application is received, it is to  be advertised  in the  manner prescribed inviting the public to  file objections. After considering the objections the licensing  authority has  to decide  whether to grant or refuse the  no-objection certificate.  This  scheme  emerges from the  combined reading  of rules 3, 5 and 6. Chapter III in the  Rules prescribes rules in respect of the building to be used  as a  cinema house.  But  before  one  proceeds  to construct  the   cinema,   obtaining   of   a   no-objection certificate relevant  to the  site on  which  cinema  to  be constructed is a sine qua non.      The grievance  of the  appellants is  that  when  their objections were  invited before  issuance of  a no-objection certificate and  they filed  the same, the Distt. Magistrate as the  licensing authority  was  persuaded  to  accept  the objections and  reject the  application for  a  no-objection certificate and  thereafter when  under s.  5(3) of  the Act respondent preferred ar. appeal against the refusal to grant the no-objection  certificate, the appeal was decided at the back of  those who  had not  only filed objections but whose objections had  prevailed with  the licensing authority and, therefore, the  order granting  the no-objection certificate is violative  of the principles of natural justice. There is a two-fold fallacy in this submission.      Respondent 3  has been granted a quasi-permanent cinema licence by  the State Government allowing his appeal against the order  of  the  E  Distt.  Magistrate  refusing  such  a licence. The  order impugned  by the third respondent in the appeal before  the State  Government is  Annexure ’E’  dated 29th June  1977. A  perusal of  this particular  order would show that  initial application  for no-objection certificate was made  by the  third respondent  on 5th December 1975. 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 no-objection certificate  should not  he given  may file his objections. After  considering those objections no-objection certificate was  granted by  order dated  10th  February  G. 1976. No  exception appears to have been taken to this order granting no-objection  certificate. English rendering of the order raised  some doubt  whether a no-objection certificate was granted or a quasi-permanent cinema licence was granted. Original file  was called.  Simultaneously, a certified copy of the  original order  in Hindi  was shown  to  us  at  the hearing of  the appeal  which clearly  H. shows  that a  no- objection certificate was granted limited to the duration of six months. Thereafter a quasi-permanent cinema licence 800 was granted.  This licence  was renewed twice over up to and inclusive  of  30th  September  1976.  Subsequently  by  the impugned order  dated 29th  June 1977  this licence  was not renewed. Let it again be made clear that the application was for a quasi-permanent cinema licence. This order refusing to renew quasi-permanent  cinema licence  was challenged by the third respondent  before  the  State  Government  and  which appeal was  allowed giving  rise  to  the  petition  by  the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    When an  application for  no-objection  certificate  is made, objections  have  to  be  invited  in  the  prescribed manner. There  can conceivably  be hundreds  of  objections. There is  no question  of then  giving a personal hearing to each  objector.  If  after  taking  into  consideration  the objections. a  no-objection certificate  is  granted,  there ends  the   matter  subject,  of  course,  to  any  properly constituted legal  proceedings, conceivably  a writ petition under Article  226. But  sub-s. (3)  of s.  5 of  the Act is unambiguous when  it provides  for an  appeal  only  at  the instance of  a person  aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  the licensing authority  refusing  licence.  A  fortiori,  every objector to  renewal is  not entitled  to file  an appeal if licence is  granted rejecting  his  objections.  Nor  in  an appeal by the aggrieved person within the meaning of s. 5(3) every objector  to the  grant of no-objection certificate is entitled to  be joined  as a  party respondent  or that each objector is  entitled to  notice of  hearing of  the appeal. however, the  grievance of  the appellants it without merits because initially  when no-objection certificate was applied for they  did not object and one who has not objected cannot subsequently make  a grievance  [see Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & others(1)].      The second  fallacy is  that rules  3 to  6 envisage an advertisement  of   an  application   for   a   no-objection certificate and  inviting objections ’hereto and disposal of such an  application. There  is, however, nothing in the Act or the  rules which  requires  the  licensing  authority  to invite objections  before grant  of a quasi-permanent cinema licence. The  right to object is at the initial stage when a no-objection certificate  is applied  for by  the  intending applicant for  such a certificate. But there is no provision for inviting  objections  when  the  application  is  for  a permanent or  quasi-permanent cinema  licence or  a  touring cinema licence.  There is  no provision  in the Act or Rules which requires advertisement of such an application inviting objections and 801 consideration of  the objections  before grant  of a  cinema licence. In  A this  case the  application which  was turned down by  the Distt.  Magistrate was  one for  renewal  of  a quasi-permanent cinema  licence. The  application for  a no- objection certificate  and granting  of the  same had passed muster long  before on 10th February 1976 and appellants had not raised  any  objection  to  the  grant  of  no-objection certificate. When  the present  appellants objected  to  the renewal of  a quasi-permanent  cinema licence it was not the stage for grant of a no-objection certificate but it was the stage of  renewal of  quasi-permanent licence  subsequent to the stage  of granting  of a  no-objection certificate, when there was no statutory obligation on the licensing authority to invite  objections nor  were the  appellants entitled  to file objections  and nor  were they  entitled to be heard. A right to  notice by  reason of  any rule of natural justice, which a  party may  establish, must depend for its existence upon proof  of an  interest which  is bound to be injured by not hearing  the party  claiming to  be entitled to a notice and to  be heard  before an  order is passed. If the duty to give notice  and to  hear the  party is  not mandatory,  the actual order  passed on  a matter  must  be  shown  to  have injuriously affected  the interest  of the  party which  was given no  notice of the matter [see Cosmosteels Private Ltd. v. Jairam  Das Gupta  &  Ors.  There  was  no  statutory  or mandatory duty  to hear the appellants. There fore, there is no substance  in the  grievance that before granting renewal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

of such  licence the State Government in the appeal filed by the third  respondent had  not heard  them and  that such  a decision was  rendered in  violation of  the  principles  of natural justice.      Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents, wanted to contend  that the  appellants are not acting bona fide in vindication of  their own  rights but  they are a fence or a cloak for  the  owners  of  Paras  Cinema,  the  holders  of permanent cinema licence in the locality, and the appellants thus being  proxies for  such a  trade rival,  they have  no locus standi to file the objections. Mr. Sanghi heavily drew upon the  observations of  this Court  in Jashbhai  Motibhai Desai’s  case   (supra)  to   make  good   the   submission. Undoubtedly, in  the aforementioned case this Court in terms held that  a rival in cinema business has no locus standi to question the  validity of  the order  under which  the other person has  been granted  a cinema  licence, but as the only contention raised  on behalf  of  the  appellants  does  not commend to  us and,  therefore, the appeal is likely to fail on that  ground alone,  it is  not necessary to explore this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents. 802      There was  only one  point raised in this appeal and as there is  no merit  in it, the appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.      PATHAK, J.-I agree that the appeal should be dismissed, but on a very short ground.      Rules 3 to 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules,  1972   relate  to  the  grant  of  a  "no-objection" certificate, that  is to  say a certificate that there is no objection to the location of the cinema at the site proposed by the  applicant.  The  Rules  contemplate  the  filing  of objections by  local residents.  That is  the stage at which opposition to  the establishment of a cinema at the proposed site is  specifically provided  for. Any person opposing the establishment of  a cinema  at the proposed location must do so before  a  "no-objection"  certificate  is  granted.  The appellants did  not file  any objection  at that  stage "no- objection" certificate  was granted to the third respondent. Thereafter, when  the third  respondent applied for a cinema licence, the  appellants for  the  first  time  opposed  the application. They  opposed it on the ground that there was a mosque, a  "madarsa" and  a temple  in the vicinity and that the cinema,  if permitted,  would constitute  an obstruction and annoyance  to the  local residents.  Inasmuch  as  those grounds were  available to  them during  the proceedings for considering the  grant of  a "no-objection" certificate, and they  did  not  file  any  objection,  they  cannot  now  be permitted to  plead a  right to oppose the grant of a cinema licence. Had  they apposed  the grant  of the "no-objection" certificate and their objection had made out a good case, it is possible  that the  "no-objection" certificate would have been refused, and in that event the applicant would not have applied for  a cinema  licence. on  that  short  ground  the appeal must fail.      That being so, I need not consider the further question whether in  an appeal  filed by  an applicant,  who has been refused a  cinema licence,  the  local  residents,  who  had objected to  the grant  of a  "no-objection" certificate and had been  over-ruled, can contest the claim of the applicant to  a  cinema  licence.  Rule  102  empowers  the  licensing authority to refuse a cinema licence if the cinema is likely to cause obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to residents, or passers by in the vicinity of the cinema. Rule  6 declares that the. grant of a "no-objection"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

certificate  is  without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  the licensing authority  to refuse  a cinema  licence under Rule 102. I  leave the  question open  whether a  person who  has objected to  the grant  of a "no-objection" certificate when that grant was under consideration 803 can subsequently oppose the grant of a cinema licence on the same   grounds which  he  took  against  the  "no-objection" certificate.      The appellants  not being  entitled  to  challenge  the grant of  the cinema licence to the third respondent, I need express no opinion on the validity of that grant.      The appeal  is dismissed  but without  any order  as to costs. N.V.K.                                     Appeal dismissed. 804