ORDER
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. By this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant or issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice bearing No. ENT 76/94-95 dated 12.10.1994, issued by the respondent – Licensing Authority and annexed as Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has further prayed for a Writ of Mandamus being issued against the respondent – Licencing Authority directing the Licensing Authority to consider the petitioner’s application for regrant of licence as per Rule 6 of the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Casette (Regulation) Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1984’ and for regrant of the same forthwith without insisting upon for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, as per demand made in the impugned notice and for such other direction, Order or Writ as this Court deems fit. The interim relief, which has been claimed and main relief claimed in this Writ Petition are almost of the same impact and nature. It is one of the well settled principles of law that if the granting of interim relief would tantamount to the granting of the main relief in the case, then, it should not be granted ordinarily, because it will be allowing of this Writ Petition without giving opportunity of hearing to the other side. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s Counsel desired and submitted that there is short point involved purely of law and let the Petition be heard on merits and be decided finally to which Government Counsel did not have any objection. As such, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner – Sri B.G. Sridharan and Sri. N. Devadas, the learned Government Advocate.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, who is the owner of the land bearing site No. 135/21C of Karkala Town has applied for licence under Rule 4 for exhibiting cinematograph through Television and through Video Casette. He, in pursuance of the necessary certificates having been issued and furnished by the concerned authorities, was granted licence for the purpose on 26.4.1989 and on the basis thereof, he had been exhibiting the Cinematographs. Further, according to the petitioner, the said licence was regranted from time to time till the licence last granted which has been valid upto 31.10.1994. The petitioner has produced a copy of the same as Annexure-A to this Writ Petition. The petitioner has averred that he is entitled to the regrant of the licence for the next period commencing from 1.11.1994, as per Rule 6 of the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through the Video Cassette (Regulation) Rules, 1984, for short, ‘Rules of 1984’, so, he had moved an application for the regrant of the licence under Rule 6. That the Licensing Authority has issued a notice – Annexure-B which is dated 12.10.1994, calling upon the petitioner that application for the regrant can be considered only after the production by petitioner of the No Objection Certificate obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore District.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted before me that the above impugned notice is illegal and unwarranted by law.
4. There is no question of impugned notice being issued to the petitioner and as such the impugned notice dated 12.10.1994 and order dated 24.8.1994, passed by the Licensing Authority came to be stayed by an Interim Order dated 12.9.1994, by this Court. He further submitted that it was the duty of the authority itself to have obtained all reports/certificates from the concerned authorities and thereafter, to have disposed of the application for regrant of the licence, if the said reports or certificates were necessary under Rule 4 of the Rules, otherwise, there would have been no need for any report.
5. Shri.N. Devadas, learned Government Advocate appearing behalf the opposite party submitted before me firstly that the Petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal to the Divisional Commissioner available under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1984, The learned Government Advocate – Sri. Devadas, further submitted that No Objection Certificate from the Superintendent of Police, is a must before his application for regrant could be considered and that the authority did not commit any illegal act by not granting any licence until the No Objection Certificate is furnished.
6. I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, namely, Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate – Sri. Devadas. As regards the first contention of the learned Government Advocate regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition, in my opinion, there is no substance. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that Writ Petition is maintainable and it should not be dismissed as no alternative remedy is available under Rule 12 to the petitioner, has got much substance, in addition to the principle that Rule of alternative remedy is not per se a bar.
7. Rule 12(1) of the Rules referred to above, particularly its material portion of it reads as under:-
“12(1): Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Licensing Authority under these rules may appeal to the Divisional Commissioner of the Division.”
A reading of Sub-rule 1 of Rule 12 per se indicates that right of appeal is available to a person aggrieved from a decision of the Licensing Authority and from no other order.
8. The expression ‘decision’ is very material, that is, decision on a disputed point, such as, the question which could be whether the petitioner is entitled to regrant of licence and regrant would be made in his favour or not? This matter or question has yet got to be decided by the the Licensing Authority and no decision has so far been made by Licensing Authority. In the present case, a notice or endorsement has been made by the Licensing Authority requiring the petitioner to produce ‘No Objection Certificate?’ As such, in my opinion, the provisions of Rule 12(1) of Rules will not apply as there is no decision against which an appeal could have been filed arid in this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order or failure of the authority to consider the application made by the petitioner. That is to be noted under the Rule of alternative remedy is a Rule of prudence and guidance for the exercise of discretion by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that if equally efficacious remedy is available to the party under a statutory law, he should be relegated to that remedy, but, there are exceptional cases, in which the Court may not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, even if alternative remedy exists or is available such as the cases, where the provision of law is challenged to be ultra vires; or where the order impugned suffers from violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
The leading case on the subject is the case of Mohammed Nooh AIR 1958 SC 85. There may be another illustration also, where order impugned is such which touches the conscience of the Court, then, it is open to the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.
9. In the present case, Annexure-B appears to be of a nature which is passed without jurisdiction. So, it touched the conscience of the Court, for the reasons that the order impugned was passed by the authority concerned directing the petitioner to file No Objection Certificate without applying its mind to the provisions of law. In this view, I proceed to deal with the merits of the case.
10. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1984 framed under the Karnataka Cinema Regulations Act (Act No. 23 of 1964) reads as under:
“4(1):- On receipt of application under Rule (3), the licensing authority shall:-
(i) if the application is not in order return the same for re-presentation within a period of thirty days failing which such application is deemed to have been rejected;
(ii) if the application is in order forward the copies of such application to the following authorities having jurisdiction over the area where the place is situated for their reports or certificates:-
(a) The Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police;
(b) the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department;
(c). The Health Officer;
(d) the Officer of the Electrical Inspectorate,
(e) the Fire Officer.
Rule 4(2) The authorities specified above, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of application under Sub-rule (1), before sending report or certificate, as the case may be, regarding the exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorder, satisfy themselves, about the following:-
(i) that there is a need in the place where the licence is sought;
(ii) that the exhibition of films will not endanger public safety;
(iii) that the building and electrical installations are adequate and sound for the exhibition of films;
(iv) that adequate provisions are made for sanitation, ventilation and light;
(v) that necessary precautions have been observed and provision is made to instal fire fighting equipments;
(vi) that the provisions of these Rules and the Act and Rules that are in force regarding the exhibition of Cinematograph films have been complied with; and
(vii) that there is no objection for grant of licence.
Rule 4(3): In the case of the exhibition of films on television screen or video cassette recorder in transport vehicle, the licensing authority shall obtain the tax clearance certificate issued under the Karnataka Motor Vehicle (Taxation) Rules, 1957 and the fitness certificate issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Rule 4(4): The certificate issued Under Sub-rules (2) and (3) shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue.
Rule 4(5): The licensing authority shall, in deciding whether to grant or refuse licence for exhibition of films have regard to the following matters/namely.
(i) the interest of the public generally;
(ii) the status, antecedents and previous experience of the applicant.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause the expression ‘antecedents’ means the conduct of the applicant in relation to the payment of any tax or dues payable by him to the Government.
Rule 4(6) The licensing authority shall not grant a licence under these rules unless it is satisfied:-
(i) that the rules have been substantially complied with; and
(ii) in the case of an application for the grant of a licence for exhibition of film, that adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which the licence is to be granted, to provide for the safety, convenience an*d comfort of the persons attending exhibitions therein.
Rule 4(7) Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certificates under Sub-rules (2) and (3), the licensing authority may grant licence to the applicant in Form III, on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. When the licensing authority refuses to grant any licence, it shall do so by an order communicated to the applicant, giving the reasons in writing for such refusal.
Rule 4(8) Every licence granted under these rules shall be personal to the person to whom it is granted and no transfer or assignment thereof, whether absolute or by way of security or otherwise shall be valid unless approved in writing by the licensing authority.
Rule 4(9) A licence granted under these rules shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue of licence.
11. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1984 deals with the application for regrant. It reads as under;
“Rule 6(1): An application for regrant of a licence shall be made in Form-1 to the Licensing Authority thirty days before the expiry of the licence originally granted:
Provided that if the licensing authority is satisfied that for valid reasons the application could not be made within the period specified above, it may receive such application after the date, but, not later than fifteen days.
Rule 6(2) The application for the regrant of a licence shall be accompanied by a Treasury challan for having paid the prescribed fee under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 and the licence originally granted.
Rule 6(3): On receipt of the application for regrant of licence the Licencing Authority may subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules regrant a licence:
12. A reading of Rule 6 per se shows that application for regrant has got to be made 30 days prior to the expiry of the licence originally granted. In the present case, the licence was to expire on 31.10.1994 and the application for regrant had been made on 26th September, 1994. Thus, application had been made within the period prescribed. That the application for regrant according to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 has got to be accompanied by a treasury challan for having paid the prescribed fee under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 3, and the licence originally granted and no other thing is mentioned in Sub-rule 2. That Sub-rule 3 provides that on the receipt of the application for regrant, the Licensing Authority may grant licence subject to the provisions of the Rules. The expression ‘subject to the provisions of the Rules’ has got a relevance and within its purview, reference may be made to Rule 4 of the Rules itself. A reading of Rule 4 per se shows that the application if it is in order, the copies of the application shall be forwarded to the following authorities having jurisdiction over the area, where, the place is situated for report and certificate by the Licensing Authority as per the language of Rule 4 Sub-rule 1 the authorities are: a) Superintendent of Police or the Police Commissioner, (b) The Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, (c) The Health Officer, (d) Officer of the Electrical Inspectorate & (e) the Fire Officer.
A perusal of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 further clearly indicates that once the application is forwarded to the other authorities, the authorities shall within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the application satisfy themselves about the matters referred in Sub-rule 2 under heads (i) to (vii) and thereafter, they are required under the law to forward or to send their report or certificate as the case may be, and thereafter, they have to issue No Objection Certification of their own, but if, No Objection Certificate cannot be issued by them, they have to submit the report as to why the No Objection Certificate has not been granted.
13. It is after this process is finished or completed, the Licensing Authority is required to decide the question whether to grant or to refuse the grant of licence for exhibition having regard to the interest of public and to the matters referred to in Sub-clause (v) including the status, antecedents and previous experiences of the applicant. Sub-rule 6 further provides that licence shall not be granted unless the authorities are satisfied with respect to the matters mentioned therein. So, perusal of Rules 4 and 6 per se reveal a complete procedure in the matter of grant or refusal of licence and that thereafter, the remedy of appeal is provided against decision of grant or refusal to grant the licence. I further find under these Rules, that it is for the applicant to move the application along with the documents which are required to be filed by him under Rules 4 & 6 and thereafter, it is and has been the duty of the Licensing Authority to forward the copies of the application for report or certificate to the concerned authorities and call for report or No Objection Certificate within a period of 15 days ordinarily; if any of those authorities decides not to issue the No Objection Certificate, then the concerned authority has to submit the report of reasons for not issuing No Objection Certificate.
14. So, under the Rules it was not for the petitioner to have applied for such certificate nor do the Rules require that he should obtain or procure those certificates himself as those certificates are required to be furnished by authority or in absence of which authority concerned is required to furnish the report of reasons for refusal to grant No Objection Certificate vide Rule 4 of the Rules of 1984, I am of the opinion that the opposite party erred in law and acted in excess of jurisdiction really by issuing the notice to the petitioner and calling upon the petitioner as mentioned in notice of 12.10.94. It was the duty of the Licensing Authority to have issued notice or letter to the authorities concerned, who have neither furnished certificate nor sent the report within the above mentioned period and called them to submit report or to submit the No Objection Certificate. Having thus considered, I am of the opinion that Annexure-B to this Writ Petition is illegal and deserves to be quashed. I further find the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Licensing Authorities to consider the petitioner’s application for regrant of licence under Rule 6 of the Rules. The opposite party – authorities are directed not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain the No Objection Certificate from the Superintendent of Police, instead, the Licensing Authority may itself act in accordance with the requirements of Rules and to call upon the concerned authorities including the Superintendent of Police to furnish either the No Objection Certificate or the report and thereafter, to consider the application for regrant and pass necessary order in the matter. When the police report is submitted and if the petitioner desires to be heard, he should be allowed the opportunity of being heard. The application for regrant should positively be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks from the date of furnishing of the copy of this order to the authorities concerned. Until the application for regrant is disposed of, petitioner may be allowed to continue to run his Video Cinema Exhibition under the old licence and that the licence should be deemed to continue in operation till that date. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.