IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
W.P. No.32497 of 2004,
WPMP. No.39368 of 2004
and
WVMP. No.1826 of 2006
Srenevassa Theatre
rep. by its Proprietor R.Venkatanarayanan
No.174
5th North Street
Mariappa Nagar
Annamalai Nagar
Chidambaram. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector of Cuddalore
Cuddalore. ...Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus,
calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the
respondent in his Na.Ka.No.C1/44429/99, dated 29.10.2004 and
quash the proceedings dated 29.10.2004 and consequently
direct the respondent herein to sanction the structural
modification of the petitioner theatre.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Balakrishnan, AGP
O R D E R
By consent, the main writ petition has been argued.
The writ petitioner is a cinema theatre. It appears that it
was not making profit and therefore, a portion of the
theatre premises was carved out and shopping complex was put
up on the western side. The petitioner states that an
application was made to the respondent, who is the licensing
authority on 27.05.1999 for approval of the alteration.
There was a delay in disposing of the said application.
Therefore, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.12652 of 2001
for consideration of the application. On 10.03.2004, the
above writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to consider and pass orders. So far, the
respondent has not passed orders. On 25.05.2004, the
respondent served a notice on the petitioner, directing the
petitioner to explain why the car parking facility is not
adequate, and also regarding the floor-space-index on the
four sides of the theatre and some suggestion was received
with regard to the placement of the ticket counter.
2. According to the petitioner, these suggestions were
carried out and a revised plan was also submitted.
Thereafter the respondent has issued the impugned order on
29.10.2004 in Na.Ka.No.C1/44429/99, directing the petitioner
to demolish the ticket counter and to provide for necessary
car parking outside the theatre premises. Against that, this
writ petition has been filed.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the Tahsildar, Sub Collector and the Superintending
Engineer, PWD have given a favourable report and yet the
modifications in construction made by the petitioner have
not been sanctioned. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the District Collector cannot depute other
officials to file a report, contrary to the earlier
favourable reports.
4. At the time of admission, interim stay was granted,
only with regard to penal action and yet till date, the
petitioner has not complied with the instruction given in
the impugned order. The impugned order reads as follows :
VERNACULAR ( TAMIL ) PORTION DELETED
5. A detailed counter along with the reports has been
filed. It is seen from that the Director of Town Planning
had turned down the application of the petitioner for
modification on the following grounds :
a) Rule 53 (1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1975 not satisfied,
as 6.1 metres open space has not been provided in 3
sides.
b) Vehicle parking space not provided
c) Public buildings Rules 9, 12 and 13 satisfied.
and therefore, the former Collector, Cuddalore had inspected
the theatre on 29.09.1998 and rejected the petitioner’s
application. Thereafter, he again applied for permission on
24.06.1999 to exclude certain extent. In this regard, Rule
53(1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1957 is relevant, which reads as
follows :
Rule 53(1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1957
says.
The building shall be provided on
atleast three of its sides with an open
space of not less than 6.10 metres in
width or such greater width as may be
required by licensing authority for
parking the number of cars which would
be normally attracted and for the
purpose of the free movement of persons
and for facilitating rescue operations
in time of emergency. Provided that in
the case of a building where the
licensee has provided adequate parking
space for cars either in the basement or
ground floor over which the auditorium
is located, or in the vicinity of the
building, acceptable to the licensing
authority, there shall be an open space
of not less than 3.05 metres on all
sides of the building except on the rear
side, for the free movement of persons
and to facilitate rescue operations in
times of emergency.
6. This open space on three sides is necessary for free
movement of the theater goers and to facilitate rescue
operation in times of emergency. The licensee shall provide
adequate parking space in the basement of the ground floor
or in the vicinity in the building. After scrutinizing the
proposal submitted by the licensee, the Superintending
Engineer, PWD had reported that the open space available,
after alteration would be adequate if the proposed
modification satisfy the rules. The detailed report of the
Superintending Engineer is also available. It is in these
circumstances that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land
Regulations was instructed to inspect the theatre premises.
The report of the said officer reads as follows :
The theatre premises has been surveyed
as per the plan countersigned by the
Superintending Engineer, Planning
Designs and Circle, Chennai. There is
some variation in measurement in the
Northern side. In this side, the
licensee encroached in Road poramboke
by way of cement platform about 1.9
metre breadth of area .The remaining
measurements in the plan have agree with
the actual measurement.
In the western side of the premises, the
measurements relating to the area
proposed to be separated from the
originally approved plan of 563.21
Sq.metres are found to be correct.
Further, in the western side, the
measurement 3.20 metres as per plan
agrees with the actual measurement.
7. The then Collector, inspected the theatre on
04.09.2001 and directed the Executive Engineer (PWD)
Buildings and Assistant Director (Survey & Land Records) to
examine the proposal of the petitioner. The Assistant
Collector, Chidambaram, who was also requested to inspect
the theatre has sent his report, in his Office
Ref.K.Dis.A3/5783/03, dated 09.12.2003, after inspecting the
theatre on 28.10.2003 as follows:
The total area having existing carpet
area of theatre is 2400 sq.metres
(including shopping complex and threatre
built area). The shopping complex were
now constructed in the area of 345
sq.metre, consisting nine shops which
were functioning. The licensee has not
obtained prior permission from the
licensing authority for the construction
of shopping complex.
On the south-west side of the backyard
of the theatre, the licensee had
constructed a new generator room without
obtaining prior permission from the
licensing authority. In this place also,
he has sold the land for a shopping
complex without getting prior approval.
Hence, 6.10 metre or more breadth on the
three sides are not available for
movement of traffic flow, car parking,
two wheeler, cycle parking as per rules
laid down in 53(1) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas
(Regularion) Rules, 1957.
The licensee has evicted the
encroachments by means of some permanent
construction and fencing in Government
poromboke on the east west direction.
The licensee has deleted certain area
(in 345 Sq.metre) in the western side of
the theatre premises and constructed the
shopping complex and also making certain
alterations in structures in the
existing theatre. Hence, there is no
sufficient space available as per Rule
53(1) of TNC (R) Rules, 1957. Therefore,
he has recommended that necessary action
may be taken against the licensee
Srinivasa Theatre, Chidambaram.”
8. The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore has
inspected the theatre and his report reads as follows :
“The theatre is situated in Survey
No.154 of C. Konthankudi village. The
Gap between the compound wall of the
theatre and the building wall of the
theatre on the western side is 3.2, 5.6,
3.3, 3.2 meters etc in difference
places. Without obtaining prior
permission of the licensing authority
(i.e.) District other side of the area
has been converted as shopping complex.
The intervening area is very narrow and
if an accident takes place in the
theatre, the main members would suddenly
rush through this area for rescue.
Since the area is very narrow, there is
likelihood of stampede and chances are
more for casualties. The front area
i.e. northern side of the theatre,
vacani space measurement is 9.8 metre
only. The old cycle stand that has been
placed earlier in the western side area,
now has been shifted to the Portico of
the theatre. During the time of
inspection, it was happened to see that
more number of cycles were standing
before the portico just close to the
step of the theatre. Car parking, two
wheeler parking, cycle parking etc. have
to be placed before the portico area and
in point of view this will cause
inconvenience to the film viewers.
Therefore, for the irregularities as
mentioned above, it is not advisable to
approve the alignment in the western
direction of the theatre area. The
licensee may be issued A SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE for having constructed the
shopping complex without permission of
the licensing authority and thereby
caused inconvenience to the Film viewers
and thereafter action may be taken
against the licensee as per Rules and
regulations.”
9. Based on the inspection notice of the District
Revenue Officer, show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner. He submitted his explanation at that time, that
he had filed a writ petition for a mandamus to the District
Collector to pass orders on his application, dated
27.05.1999.
10. According to the respondent, the petitioner had
violated the rules under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation)
Rules, 1957, (1) by converting the are at the western side
of the wall as chopping complex without obtaining prior
permission (Rule 77 of the said Rule). (2) By not providing
sufficient space for parking facility (Rule 53(1) of the
said Rule) and (3) Construction of new generator room on the
south west side of the backyard of the theatre without
obtaining prior permission (Rule 77 of the said Rule). It is
in these circumstances, show cause notice was issued for the
three violation.
11. According to the respondent, it is not correct
that the respondent had ignored the favourable report
submitted by the other officers. According to the
respondent, all the officers had sent their remarks stating
to what extent the petitioner’s request could be considered
by making suitable arrangement of the existing structure.
The earlier report have also been enclosed along with the
counter and it is seen from that it is not correct to say
that the Superintending Engineer has given a favourable
report. It has been ignored by the present Collector,
because the report itself states that the side open spaces
have been scrutnised, based on the measurements furnished by
the licensee and it is subject to the correctness of the
said measurement and it is also clear from the said report
that after the modifications are made by the petitioner,
inspection should be done to see if the modifications have
been carried out in accordance with the rules. The general
guidelines for following during the construction of the
proposed modification works was enclosed as an annexure.
12. The Assistant Director (Survey and Records) has
also filed his report. The notes of the inspection of the
then Collector, Cuddalore on 04.09.2001 reads as follows:
“During my inspection, I find that the
parking of motor vehicles behind the
theatre premises, there is no adequate
space available. On the south west side
of the backyard of the theatre, the
licencee has constructed a new generator
room violating the indication shown in
the map. As per plan submitted this
generator room has to be constructed on
the south east portion. This deviation
has been noticed during my inspection
and the licencee has not obtained prior
permission.
The Licencee `s request has been
previously rejected by the licensing
authorities as per rule 53(1) of TNC( R)
Rules as the licencee has not satisfied
the rules. The licencee has proposed to
remove the existing toilets on the
southern side and to construct the same
adjacent to the existing building
backyard of the cinema house. Parking
slot seems to be inadequate.
E.E. (PWD), Buildings, Assistant
Director (Survey & Land Records) should
examine the matter and the availability
of space for car parking and two
wheelers / cycles parking and send me a
report over the space in question to
decide the issue early.
The licencee has also encroached upon
some space in Government poramboke on
east west direction by means of some
permanent construction and fencing. The
encroachments have to be removed.”
13. The inspection report of the Assistant Collector,
Chidambaram has also been enclosed and it is seen from that,
the Inspection is done in the presence of the Manager of the
theatre and it reads as follows :
“At the time of inspection of the
Srinivasa Theatre, Chidambaram the
Manager of the Theatre was present.
The total area having existing carpet
area of theatre is 2400 sq. metre.,
(including shopping complex and theatre
built area) The shopping complex were
now constructed in the area of 345
Sq.metre., consisting nine shops were
functioning. The Licence has not
obtained prior permission from the
Licensing authority for the
construction of shopping complex.
On the south west side of the backyard
of the theatre the licensee has
constructed a new generator room
without obtained prior permission from
the Licensing authority. In this place
also he has sold the land for approval.
Hence there is a 6.10 metre., or more
breath on the three sides are not
available for movement of traffic flow,
car parking, two wheeler, cycle parking
as per rules laid down in 53(1) of
Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules
1957.
The Licensee have evicted the
encroachment by means of some permanent
construction and fencing in Government
poramboke on the west direction on the
points noticed by the former
Collector’s inspection dated
04.09.2001.
The Licensee had made deleted certain
area in 345 sq.metre., the western side
of the theatre premises and constructed
the structures in the existing
theartre. Hence there is no sufficient
space available as per Rule 53(1) of
TNC( R) Rules 1957. Therefore I
request that necessary action may be
then against the licence, Srinivasa
Theatre, Chidambaram. I enclose the
notes of my inspection and sketch
showing the vacant site. Commercial
complex and Cinema theatre presently
built up area.”
14. It is in these circumstances that the impugned
order has been issued. The authorities are bound in duty to
ensure that the safety regulations with regard to
construction of theatre are not violated by the theatre
owners. It is on account of unscrupulous violation and
disregard of the statutory rules that tragic accidents
occur in theatre, and even in an emergency the cinema goers
are unable to be evacuated safety. In this background, if
the respondent wants to ensure that the petitioner theatre
premises shall adhere to the regulations, this Court will
not and cannot interfere. All the reports enclosed along
with the counter would show that the inspection has been
done meticulously by various officers and it is thereafter
the impugned order has been passed. I see no reason to
interfere. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.39368 of 2004 and
W.V.M.P.No.1826 of 2006 is also dismissed.
tsvn
To
The District Collector of Cuddalore
Cuddalore.