A P NACHIMUTHU Vs. V S K RAMASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arises from the judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. disposing of two writ petitions, Nos. 179 and 196 of 1956. The only question involved in these appeals is the construction of one ot the rules framed under the madras Places of Public Resort Act and its applicability to the facts of this case. The appellant and" the contesting first respondent (who will be referred to as the respondent) are proprietors of two rival touring talkies. Rule 18 (a) of the aforesaid rules runs thus:

(2.) APPARENTLY both of them were anxious to obtain a licence for a touring talkie in the village of Avadathur, within the limits of the Jalakanta-puram panchayat board in the Salem District and both of them were not able to have any place for running a touring talkie which had an open space not less than 50 yards in width on all sides Both of them, therefore, applied for an exemption relying upon the proviso to Rule 18 (a ). The applications of both the appellant and the respondent Were granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. Then both of them applied to the Taluk Magistrate, for grant of a licence under Section 7 of the Act. The appellant was granted a licence. The respondent filed an appeal to the Revenue divisional Officer. But his appeal was dismissed. Thereupon the respondent filed two writ petitions, one to quash the order granting to the appellant the licence, and another to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting the appellant exemption under rule 18 (a) Proviso. Both these writ petitions were heard by Rajagopala Aiyangar J. together, and the learned. Judge set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting to the appellant exemption under rule 18 (a) ana its proviso, and in consequence also set aside the order granting him the licence under the Act. Hence these appeals by the appellant.

(3.) THE ground on which Rajagopala Aiyangar J: set aside the orders, and in particular, the order granting exemption to the appellant under rule 18 (a) proviso, was that there were seven or eight cocoanut trees within 40 feet of the auditorium and the existence of trees, be the number small or great, and whatoever be their distribution in the space, negatives the place around being an "open space" within rule 18 (a ).