SINGHAL ,j. - (1.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is a social worker and is a resident of Khetri Nagar and M/s Deen Bandhu Talkies are running Cinema very close to the Central Public School, which is creating nuisance in the studies of the students and in accordance with the provisions of rule 16 of the Rajasthan Cinematograph Rules, 1959 no cinema can be allowed to be operated at a distance of 200 meters from the educational institution. It has also been submitted that the said cinema is running shows at 12. 30 P. M. and 3. 15 PM, which is creating hinderance in the education of the students and besides this, a loud-speaker has been placed out side cinema hall, which is creating nuisance and noise. It has also been submitted that the building is not in proper condition and the wiring is in such a bad condition that it may be injurious to the public. THE cinema owners have not provided parking space and inspite of all these contraventions, representations were made to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and they have not cared to enforce the provisions of law. A prayer has been made that M/s Deen Bandhu Talkies should not be allowed to exhibit the films.
(2.) MR. Rathore appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has denied the allegations motives and it has been submitted that the petition has been filed with some ulterior & the petitioner is neither the resident of Khetri nor is a social worker and is a resident of Singhania and is a partner of Vinod Videos. Allegations and counter allegations have been made. It has also been submitted that the Cinema was started on 14. 05. 1977 and the licensing authorities have complied with the provisions of law. The Cinema was started on 14th May,1977, whereas the school came into existence at a later date on 26. 06. 1979. It has also been submitted that the distance of the cinema building has to be measured from the centre of the school building and the distance is more than 200 meters. The petitioner has informed the licensing authority when the construction of the school building was going on and the Government has not taken any objection and the renewal of the licence is made regularly as due compliance of law was found by the licensing authority in respect of the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. It has been denied that there is any loud speaker out-side cinema building and attention has been drawn toward the affidavits (Annexures R. 4/19 to R. 4/22) of the neighbourers. It has also been informed that the building is in the perfect condition and wiring is also not defective as would be evident from the reports of the Inspector dated 21. 5. 1990 and that of the S. D. O. dated 12. 7. 1991. It has also been submitted that sufficient parking place has been left in accordance with law and that the petition has been filed after 12 years and on this grounds, it is liable to be dismissed. Since the petition has also been submitted that Annexures A/1 and A/8 are the forged documents as would be evident from Annexures R. 4/6 and R. 4/15 and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be directed to be taken against the petitioner for submitting false documents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has submitted that licence has been granted and rehewed in accordance with law and there is no breach of any of the conditions of the licence or the Rajasthan Cinematograph Rules, 1959 or the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1959. The original record as directed by this court on 20. 02. 1992 was also produced for the perusal of this court. I have considered over the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and is of the opinion that even without making any complaint by any person, the authorities under the Act are bound to see that the compliance of the Rules have been made. If a particular authority acts in a manner, which is not conducive to the ethics or law then action could be taken against that authority. The licencing authority if has granted the licence or renewed it under law, it will be presumed that the authority was satisfied with regard to the complaince of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In the present matter, from the file submitted by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, it is evident that M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. have written a letter No. KCA-V (90)/es-tate/73 dated 6. 03. 1976 in which it has been mentioned that the educational institutions from the cinema plot are at a distance of nearly one farlong. No objection certificate was granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khetari (Licencing Authority) on 8. 03. 1976. The Executive Engineer, P. W. D. , Jhunjhunu has examined the drawings of the cinema building in accordance with Rules 5 and 16 and has given No Objection Certificate as per his letter No. 23 dated 2. 4. 1976. The licence was granted on 6. 03. 1977 and has been renewed up to 31. 03. 1992. There was a complaint earlier with regard to the noise and the S. D. M. , Jhunjhunu has directed that the records can be placed on the loud speaker in respect of evening and noon shows. M/s Deen Bandhu Talkies have informed that the complaint about noise is not correct. The inspection of the cinema was cared on 10. 07. 1991 by the S. D. M. and it was found that 3 shows are run by the cinema at 12. 30, 6. 30 and 9. 30 and parking space has been provided for the facilities of the spectators in respect of their Cars, Jeeps, Scooters and Cycles. It was observed that only 2 fans and one cooler are not working properly, which were directed to be repaired immediately. In this report, no contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules was found. In Mohd. Ibrahim Khan vs. State of M. P. (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed that a party not objecting at initial stage to grant of no objection certificate in respect of site for cinema, is not entitled to object it at subsequent stage for renewal. In State of U. P. vs. Rajaram Jaisawal (2), the Supreme Court has observed that public interest must be taken into consideration both at the time of granting certificate of approval under Rule 3 as well as granting cinema licence under Section 3. It has further been observed that while considering public interest under Sec. 3 the relevant aspect of public interest already dealt with in granting certificate under rule 3 cannot be reviewed for the purpose of refusing licence.
(3.) FROM the record produced before this court, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition, which has been claimed to have been filed in public interest. The various contraventions as alleged above are not borne to be proved. It is also a fact that in the present matter, the school building was not even in existence at the time when the licence was granted to the cinema and, therefore, by subsequent construction of the school, the grievance that the provisions of Rule 16 are violated, is not justified. The interest of the Video Center owner and the cinema owners is clashing each other and, therefore, this petition has been filed showing it to be a public interest litigation. No reasons have been explained as to why the petition has been filed at such a belated stage of more than 12 years. The reason could be obvious that merely at that time Video Centers were not operating and this is a recent development of the science. The only thing which could be observed is that during the school hours, if any record is played on the loud speaker so that noise may come out-side the cinema building, then it will not be proper to allow the same as it may create interference in the studies of the students. From the perusal of the file, it appears that a complaint was made earlier and the orders were passed and, therefore, it cannot be said as to whether M/s Deen Bandhu Talkies are using loud speaker during day time when the school remains open. If it is so, the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall ensure that the activity of M/s. Deen Bandhu Talkies to that extent has to be stopped and even the time of half an hour as allowed by the S. D. M. should not be allowed for playing records on gramo-phone during the period the students are taking education in the school. The other objections having not been proved, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/- ;