{"id":203339,"date":"2007-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007"},"modified":"2017-06-14T07:42:55","modified_gmt":"2017-06-14T02:12:55","slug":"srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                      DATED : 25.10.2007\n\n                            CORAM\n\n           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN\n\n                  W.P. No.32497 of 2004,\n                  WPMP. No.39368 of 2004\n                 \t     and \n\t          WVMP. No.1826 of 2006\n\n\n\n\nSrenevassa Theatre\nrep. by its Proprietor R.Venkatanarayanan\nNo.174\n5th North Street\nMariappa Nagar\nAnnamalai Nagar\nChidambaram.                                           ...Petitioner\n\n           Vs.\n\nThe District Collector of Cuddalore\nCuddalore.                                             ...Respondent\n\n\n\n       Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof  India,  praying  for a writ of certiorarified  mandamus,\ncalling for the records comprised in the proceedings of  the\nrespondent in his Na.Ka.No.C1\/44429\/99, dated 29.10.2004 and\nquash  the  proceedings  dated 29.10.2004  and  consequently\ndirect  the  respondent  herein to sanction  the  structural\nmodification of the petitioner theatre.\n\n\n\n      For Petitioner         : Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan\n\n      For Respondent         : Mr.K.Balakrishnan, AGP\n\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       By  consent, the main writ petition has been  argued.<\/p>\n
The writ petitioner is a cinema theatre. It appears that  it<\/p>\n
was  not  making  profit and therefore,  a  portion  of  the<\/p>\n
theatre premises was carved out and shopping complex was put<\/p>\n
up  on  the  western  side. The petitioner  states  that  an<\/p>\n
application was made to the respondent, who is the licensing<\/p>\n
authority  on  27.05.1999 for approval  of  the  alteration.<\/p>\n
There  was  a  delay  in disposing of the said  application.<\/p>\n
Therefore, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.12652 of 2001<\/p>\n
for  consideration  of the application. On  10.03.2004,  the<\/p>\n
above writ petition was disposed of with a direction to  the<\/p>\n
respondents  to  consider  and  pass  orders.  So  far,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  has  not  passed  orders.  On  25.05.2004,   the<\/p>\n
respondent served a notice on the petitioner, directing  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  to explain why the car parking facility  is  not<\/p>\n
adequate,  and also regarding the floor-space-index  on  the<\/p>\n
four  sides of the theatre and some suggestion was  received<\/p>\n
with regard to the placement of the ticket counter.<\/p>\n
      2. According to the petitioner, these suggestions were<\/p>\n
carried   out  and  a  revised  plan  was  also   submitted.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the respondent has issued the impugned  order  on<\/p>\n
29.10.2004 in Na.Ka.No.C1\/44429\/99, directing the petitioner<\/p>\n
to  demolish the ticket counter and to provide for necessary<\/p>\n
car parking outside the theatre premises. Against that, this<\/p>\n
writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
the   Tahsildar,   Sub  Collector  and  the   Superintending<\/p>\n
Engineer,  PWD have given a favourable report  and  yet  the<\/p>\n
modifications  in construction made by the  petitioner  have<\/p>\n
not  been  sanctioned. According to the learned counsel  for<\/p>\n
the  petitioner, the District Collector cannot depute  other<\/p>\n
officials  to  file  a  report,  contrary  to  the   earlier<\/p>\n
favourable reports.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4. At the time of admission, interim stay was granted,<\/p>\n
only  with  regard to penal action and yet  till  date,  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  has not complied with the instruction  given  in<\/p>\n
the impugned order. The impugned order reads as follows :<\/p>\n
\tVERNACULAR  ( TAMIL )  PORTION DELETED<\/p>\n
      5.  A detailed counter along with the reports has been<\/p>\n
filed.  It  is seen from that the Director of Town  Planning<\/p>\n
had  turned  down  the  application of  the  petitioner  for<\/p>\n
modification on the following grounds :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      a) Rule 53 (1) of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1975 not satisfied,
\nas  6.1  metres open      space has not been provided  in  3
\nsides.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      b) Vehicle parking space not provided<\/p>\n
      c) Public buildings Rules 9, 12 and 13 satisfied.<\/p>\n
and therefore, the former Collector, Cuddalore had inspected<\/p>\n
the  theatre  on  29.09.1998 and rejected  the  petitioner’s<\/p>\n
application. Thereafter, he again applied for permission  on<\/p>\n
24.06.1999  to exclude certain extent. In this regard,  Rule<\/p>\n
53(1)  of T.N.C.(R) Rules, 1957 is relevant, which reads  as<\/p>\n
follows :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Rule  53(1)  of  T.N.C.(R)  Rules,  1957
\n          says.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The   building  shall  be  provided   on
\n          atleast three of its sides with an  open
\n          space  of  not less than 6.10 metres  in
\n          width  or such greater width as  may  be
\n          required  by  licensing  authority   for
\n          parking  the number of cars which  would
\n          be   normally  attracted  and  for   the
\n          purpose  of the free movement of persons
\n          and  for  facilitating rescue operations
\n          in  time of emergency. Provided that  in
\n          the   case  of  a  building  where   the
\n          licensee  has provided adequate  parking
\n          space for cars either in the basement or
\n          ground  floor over which the  auditorium
\n          is  located, or in the vicinity  of  the
\n          building,  acceptable to  the  licensing
\n          authority, there shall be an open  space
\n          of  not  less  than 3.05 metres  on  all
\n          sides of the building except on the rear
\n          side,  for the free movement of  persons
\n          and  to facilitate rescue operations  in
\n          times of emergency.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. This open space on three sides is necessary for free<\/p>\n
movement  of  the  theater goers and  to  facilitate  rescue<\/p>\n
operation in times of emergency. The licensee shall  provide<\/p>\n
adequate  parking space in the basement of the ground  floor<\/p>\n
or  in the vicinity in the building. After scrutinizing  the<\/p>\n
proposal  submitted  by  the  licensee,  the  Superintending<\/p>\n
Engineer,  PWD had reported  that the open space  available,<\/p>\n
after   alteration  would  be  adequate  if   the   proposed<\/p>\n
modification satisfy the rules. The detailed report  of  the<\/p>\n
Superintending Engineer is also available. It  is  in  these<\/p>\n
circumstances that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land<\/p>\n
Regulations was instructed to inspect the theatre  premises.<\/p>\n
The report of the said officer reads as follows :<\/p>\n
         The  theatre  premises has been  surveyed
\n         as  per  the  plan countersigned  by  the
\n         Superintending     Engineer,     Planning
\n         Designs  and  Circle, Chennai.  There  is
\n         some  variation  in  measurement  in  the
\n         Northern   side.   In  this   side,   the
\n         licensee  encroached in  Road   poramboke
\n         by  way  of  cement  platform  about  1.9
\n         metre  breadth  of  area  .The  remaining
\n         measurements in the plan have agree  with
\n         the actual measurement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         In  the western side of the premises, the
\n         measurements   relating   to   the   area
\n         proposed   to  be  separated   from   the
\n         originally   approved  plan   of   563.21
\n         Sq.metres   are  found  to  be   correct.
\n         Further,   in  the  western   side,   the
\n         measurement  3.20  metres  as  per   plan
\n         agrees with the actual measurement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  The  then  Collector,  inspected  the  theatre  on<\/p>\n
04.09.2001   and  directed  the  Executive  Engineer   (PWD)<\/p>\n
Buildings and Assistant Director (Survey & Land Records)  to<\/p>\n
examine  the  proposal  of  the  petitioner.  The  Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector,  Chidambaram, who was also requested  to  inspect<\/p>\n
the   theatre   has   sent  his  report,   in   his   Office<\/p>\n
Ref.K.Dis.A3\/5783\/03, dated 09.12.2003, after inspecting the<\/p>\n
theatre on 28.10.2003 as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         The  total  area  having existing  carpet
\n         area   of   theatre  is  2400   sq.metres
\n         (including shopping complex and  threatre
\n         built  area).  The shopping complex  were
\n         now   constructed  in  the  area  of  345
\n         sq.metre,  consisting  nine  shops  which
\n         were  functioning. The licensee  has  not
\n         obtained   prior  permission   from   the
\n         licensing  authority for the construction
\n         of shopping complex.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         On  the  south-west side of the  backyard
\n         of   the   theatre,  the   licensee   had
\n         constructed a new generator room  without
\n         obtaining  prior  permission   from   the
\n         licensing authority. In this place  also,
\n         he  has  sold  the land  for  a  shopping
\n         complex  without getting prior  approval.
\n         Hence, 6.10 metre or more breadth on  the
\n         three   sides   are  not  available   for
\n         movement  of  traffic flow, car  parking,
\n         two  wheeler, cycle parking as per  rules
\n         laid  down in 53(1) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas
\n         (Regularion) Rules, 1957.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The     licensee    has    evicted    the
\n         encroachments by means of some  permanent
\n         construction  and fencing  in  Government
\n         poromboke on the east west direction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The  licensee  has deleted  certain  area
\n         (in 345 Sq.metre) in the western side  of
\n         the  theatre premises and constructed the
\n         shopping complex and also making  certain
\n         alterations   in   structures   in    the
\n         existing  theatre.  Hence,  there  is  no
\n         sufficient  space available as  per  Rule
\n         53(1)  of TNC (R) Rules, 1957. Therefore,
\n         he  has recommended that necessary action
\n         may   be   taken  against  the   licensee
\n         Srinivasa Theatre, Chidambaram.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8.   The  District  Revenue  Officer,  Cuddalore  has<\/p>\n
inspected the theatre and his report reads as follows :<\/p>\n
          “The   theatre  is  situated  in  Survey
\n          No.154  of  C. Konthankudi village.  The
\n          Gap  between  the compound wall  of  the
\n          theatre  and  the building wall  of  the
\n          theatre on the western side is 3.2, 5.6,
\n          3.3,   3.2   meters  etc  in  difference
\n          places.     Without   obtaining    prior
\n          permission  of  the licensing  authority
\n          (i.e.)  District other side of the  area
\n          has  been converted as shopping complex.
\n          The  intervening area is very narrow and
\n          if   an  accident  takes  place  in  the
\n          theatre, the main members would suddenly
\n          rush   through  this  area  for  rescue.
\n          Since the area is very narrow, there  is
\n          likelihood  of stampede and chances  are
\n          more  for  casualties.   The front  area
\n          i.e.   northern  side  of  the  theatre,
\n          vacani  space measurement is  9.8  metre
\n          only.  The old cycle stand that has been
\n          placed earlier in the western side area,
\n          now  has been shifted to the Portico  of
\n          the   theatre.  During   the   time   of
\n          inspection, it was happened to see  that
\n          more  number  of  cycles  were  standing
\n          before  the  portico just close  to  the
\n          step  of the theatre.  Car parking,  two
\n          wheeler parking, cycle parking etc. have
\n          to be placed before the portico area and
\n          in   point  of  view  this  will   cause
\n          inconvenience   to  the  film   viewers.
\n          Therefore,  for  the  irregularities  as
\n          mentioned above, it is not advisable  to
\n          approve  the  alignment in  the  western
\n          direction  of  the theatre  area.    The
\n          licensee  may  be issued  A  SHOW  CAUSE
\n          NOTICE   for   having  constructed   the
\n          shopping  complex without permission  of
\n          the   licensing  authority  and  thereby
\n          caused inconvenience to the Film viewers
\n          and   thereafter  action  may  be  taken
\n          against  the licensee as per  Rules  and
\n          regulations.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9.  Based  on  the inspection notice of the  District<\/p>\n
Revenue  Officer,  show  cause  notice  was  issued  to  the<\/p>\n
petitioner. He submitted his explanation at that time,  that<\/p>\n
he  had filed a writ petition for a mandamus to the District<\/p>\n
Collector   to   pass  orders  on  his  application,   dated<\/p>\n
27.05.1999.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.  According to the respondent, the petitioner  had<\/p>\n
violated the rules under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation)<\/p>\n
Rules,  1957, (1) by converting the are at the western  side<\/p>\n
of  the  wall  as  chopping complex without obtaining  prior<\/p>\n
permission (Rule 77 of the said Rule). (2) By not  providing<\/p>\n
sufficient  space for parking facility (Rule  53(1)  of  the<\/p>\n
said Rule) and (3) Construction of new generator room on the<\/p>\n
south  west  side  of  the backyard of the  theatre  without<\/p>\n
obtaining prior permission (Rule 77 of the said Rule). It is<\/p>\n
in these circumstances, show cause notice was issued for the<\/p>\n
three violation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11.  According to the respondent, it is  not  correct<\/p>\n
that  the  respondent  had  ignored  the  favourable  report<\/p>\n
submitted   by   the  other  officers.  According   to   the<\/p>\n
respondent, all the officers had sent their remarks  stating<\/p>\n
to  what extent the petitioner’s request could be considered<\/p>\n
by  making  suitable arrangement of the existing  structure.<\/p>\n
The  earlier report have also been enclosed along  with  the<\/p>\n
counter  and it is seen from that it is not correct  to  say<\/p>\n
that  the  Superintending Engineer has  given  a  favourable<\/p>\n
report.  It  has  been  ignored by  the  present  Collector,<\/p>\n
because  the report itself states that the side open  spaces<\/p>\n
have been scrutnised, based on the measurements furnished by<\/p>\n
the  licensee  and it is subject to the correctness  of  the<\/p>\n
said  measurement and it is also clear from the said  report<\/p>\n
that  after  the  modifications are made by the  petitioner,<\/p>\n
inspection  should be done to see if the modifications  have<\/p>\n
been  carried out in accordance with the rules. The  general<\/p>\n
guidelines  for  following during the  construction  of  the<\/p>\n
proposed modification works was enclosed as an annexure.<\/p>\n
       12.  The Assistant Director (Survey and Records)  has<\/p>\n
also  filed his report. The notes of the inspection  of  the<\/p>\n
then Collector, Cuddalore on 04.09.2001 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
          “During  my inspection, I find that  the
\n          parking  of  motor vehicles  behind  the
\n          theatre  premises, there is no  adequate
\n          space available.  On the south west side
\n          of  the  backyard  of the  theatre,  the
\n          licencee has constructed a new generator
\n          room  violating the indication shown  in
\n          the  map.   As  per plan submitted  this
\n          generator room has to be constructed  on
\n          the  south east portion.  This deviation
\n          has  been  noticed during my  inspection
\n          and  the licencee has not obtained prior
\n          permission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The   Licencee  `s  request   has   been
\n          previously  rejected  by  the  licensing
\n          authorities as per rule 53(1) of TNC( R)
\n          Rules  as the licencee has not satisfied
\n          the rules.  The licencee has proposed to
\n          remove  the  existing  toilets  on   the
\n          southern side and to construct the  same
\n          adjacent   to   the  existing   building
\n          backyard  of the cinema house.   Parking
\n          slot seems to be inadequate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          E.E.    (PWD),   Buildings,    Assistant
\n          Director (Survey & Land Records)  should
\n          examine  the matter and the availability
\n          of   space  for  car  parking  and   two
\n          wheelers \/ cycles parking and send me  a
\n          report  over  the space in  question  to
\n          decide the issue early.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The  licencee  has also encroached  upon
\n          some  space  in Government poramboke  on
\n          east  west  direction by means  of  some
\n          permanent construction and fencing.  The
\n          encroachments have to be removed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       13. The inspection report of the Assistant Collector,<\/p>\n
Chidambaram has also been enclosed and it is seen from that,<\/p>\n
the Inspection is done in the presence of the Manager of the<\/p>\n
theatre and it reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “At   the  time  of  inspection  of  the
\n         Srinivasa   Theatre,   Chidambaram   the
\n         Manager of the Theatre was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The  total  area having existing  carpet
\n         area  of  theatre  is 2400  sq.  metre.,
\n         (including shopping complex and  theatre
\n         built  area)  The shopping complex  were
\n         now  constructed  in  the  area  of  345
\n         Sq.metre.,   consisting nine shops  were
\n         functioning.    The  Licence   has   not
\n         obtained   prior  permission  from   the
\n         Licensing     authority     for      the
\n         construction of shopping complex.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         On  the  south west side of the backyard
\n         of   the   theatre  the   licensee   has
\n         constructed   a   new   generator   room
\n         without  obtained prior permission  from
\n         the  Licensing authority.  In this place
\n         also  he has sold the land for approval.
\n         Hence  there is a 6.10 metre.,  or  more
\n         breath  on  the  three  sides  are   not
\n         available for movement of traffic  flow,
\n         car  parking, two wheeler, cycle parking
\n         as  per  rules  laid down  in  53(1)  of
\n         Tamil  Nadu   Cinema (Regulation)  Rules
\n         1957.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The    Licensee   have    evicted    the
\n         encroachment by means of some  permanent
\n         construction  and fencing in  Government
\n         poramboke  on the west direction on  the
\n         points    noticed    by    the    former
\n         Collector’s       inspection       dated
\n         04.09.2001.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The  Licensee  had made deleted  certain
\n         area  in 345 sq.metre., the western side
\n         of  the theatre premises and constructed
\n         the    structures   in   the    existing
\n         theartre.   Hence there is no sufficient
\n         space  available as per  Rule  53(1)  of
\n         TNC(   R)   Rules  1957.   Therefore   I
\n         request  that  necessary action  may  be
\n         then   against  the  licence,  Srinivasa
\n         Theatre,  Chidambaram.   I  enclose  the
\n         notes   of  my  inspection   and  sketch
\n         showing  the  vacant  site.   Commercial
\n         complex  and  Cinema  theatre  presently
\n         built up area.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       14.  It  is in these circumstances that the  impugned<\/p>\n
order has been issued. The authorities are bound in duty  to<\/p>\n
ensure   that   the  safety  regulations  with   regard   to<\/p>\n
construction  of  theatre are not violated  by  the  theatre<\/p>\n
owners.  It  is  on  account of unscrupulous  violation  and<\/p>\n
disregard  of  the  statutory rules that   tragic  accidents<\/p>\n
occur  in theatre, and even in an emergency the cinema goers<\/p>\n
are  unable  to be evacuated safety. In this background,  if<\/p>\n
the  respondent wants to ensure that the petitioner  theatre<\/p>\n
premises  shall adhere to the regulations,  this Court  will<\/p>\n
not  and  cannot  interfere. All the reports enclosed  along<\/p>\n
with  the  counter would show that the inspection  has  been<\/p>\n
done  meticulously by various officers and it is  thereafter<\/p>\n
the  impugned  order has been passed. I  see  no  reason  to<\/p>\n
interfere.  This  writ  petition  is  dismissed.  No  costs.<\/p>\n
Consequently,  connected  W.P.M.P.No.39368   of   2004   and<\/p>\n
W.V.M.P.No.1826 of 2006 is also dismissed.<\/p>\n
tsvn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The District Collector of Cuddalore
\nCuddalore.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSrenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of ... on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of ... on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-14T02:12:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-14T02:12:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of ... on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-14T02:12:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of ... on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of ... on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-14T02:12:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-14T02:12:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007"},"wordCount":2396,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007","name":"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of ... on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-14T02:12:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srenevassa-theatre-vs-the-district-collector-of-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Srenevassa Theatre vs The District Collector Of … on 25 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}