Case: Mohd. Ibrahim Khan Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

cinema licence akin to quasi-permanent cinema licence has been received and that any one who desires that no-objection certificate should not he given may file his objections. After considering those objections no-objection certificate was granted by order dated 10th February G. 1976. No exception appears to have been taken to this order granting no-objection certificate. English rendering of the order raised some doubt whether a no-objection certificate was granted or a quasi-permanent cinema licence was granted. Original file was called. Simultaneously, a certified copy of the original order in Hindi was shown to us at the hearing of the appeal which clearly H. shows that a no- objection certificate was granted limited to the duration of six months. Thereafter a quasi-permanent cinema licence was granted. This licence was renewed twice over up to and inclusive of 30th September 1976. Subsequently by the impugned order dated 29th June 1977 this licence was not renewed. Let it again be made clear that the application was for a quasi-permanent cinema licence. This order refusing to renew quasi-permanent cinema licence was challenged by the third respondent before the State Government and which appeal was allowed giving rise to the petition by the appellants.When an application for no-objection certificate is made, objections have to be invited in the prescribed manner. There can conceivably be hundreds of objections. There is no question of then giving a personal hearing to each objector. If after taking into consideration the objections. a no-objection certificate is granted, there ends the matter subject, of course, to any properly constituted legal proceedings, conceivably a writ petition under Article 226. But sub-s. (3 ) of s. 5 of the Act is unambiguous when it provides for an appeal only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority refusing licence. A fortiori, every objector to renewal is not entitled to file an appeal if licence is granted rejecting his objections. Nor in an appeal by the aggrieved person within the meaning of s. 5(3) every objector to the grant of no-objection certificate is entitled to be joined as a party respondent or that each objector is entitled to notice of hearing of the appeal. however, the grievance of the appellants it without merits because initially when no-objection certificate was applied for they did not object and one who has not objected cannot subsequently make a grievance [see Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed &others(1)].9. The second fallacy is that rules 3 to 6 envisage an advertisement of an application for a no-objection certificate and inviting objections hereto and disposal of such an application. There is, however, nothing in the Act or the rules which requires the licensing authority to invite objections before grant of a quasi-permanent cinema licence. The right to object is at the initial stage when a no-objection certificate is applied for by the intending applicant for such a certificate. But there is no provision for inviting objections when the application is for a permanent or quasi-permanent cinema licence or a touring cinema licence. There is no provision in the Act or Rules which requires advertisement of such an application inviting objections and consideration of the objections before grant of a cinema licence. In A this case the application which was turned down by the Distt. Magistrate was one for renewal of a quasi-permanent cinema licence. The application for a no- objection certificate and granting of the same had passed muster long before on 10th February 1976 and appellants had n ot raised any objection to the grant of no-objection certificate. When the present appellants objected to the renewal of a quasi-permanent cinema licence it was not the stage for grant of a no-objection certificate but it was the stage of renewal of quasi-permanent licence subsequent to the stage of granting of a no-objection certificate, when there was no statutory obligation on the licensing authority to invite objections nor were the appellants entitled to file objections and nor were they entitled to be heard. A right to notice by reason of any rule of natural justice, which a party may establish, must depend for its existence upon proof of an interest which is bound to be injured by not hearing the party claiming to be entitled to a notice and to be heard before an order is passed. If the duty to give notice and to hear the party is not mandatory, the actual order passed on a matter must be shown to have injuriously affected the interest of the party which was given no notice of the matter [see Cosmosteels Private Ltd. v. Jairam Das Gupta &Ors. There was no statutory or mandatory duty to hear the appellants. There fore, there is no substance in the grievance that before granting renewal of such licence the State Government in the appeal filed by the third respondent had not heard them and that such a decision was rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice.Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents, wanted to contend that the appellants are not acting bona fide in vindication of their own rights but they are a fence or a cloak for the owners of Paras Cinema, the holders of permanent cinema licence in the locality, and the appellants thus being proxies for such a trade rival, they have no locus standi to file the objections. Mr. Sanghi heavily drew upon the observations of this Court in Jashbhai Motibhai Desais case (supra) to make good the submission. Undoubtedly, in the aforementioned case this Court in terms held that a rival in cinema business has no locus standi to question the validity of the order under which the other person has been granted a cinema licence, but as the only contention raised on behalf o f the appellants does not commend to us and, therefore, the appeal is likely to fail on that ground alone, it is not necessary to explore this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents.10.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]If after taking into consideration the objections. acertificate is granted, there ends the matter subject, of course, to any properly constituted legal proceedings, conceivably a writ petitions. (3 ) of s. 5 of the Act is unambiguous when it provides for an appeal only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority refusing licence. A fortiori, every objector to renewal is not entitled to file an appeal if licence is granted rejecting his objections. Nor in an appeal by the aggrieved person within the meaning of s. 5(3) every objector to the grant ofcertificate is entitled to be joined as a party respondent or that each objector is entitled to notice of hearing of the appeal. however, the grievance of the appellants it without merits because initially whencertificate was applied for they did not object and one who has not objected cannot subsequently make a grievance [see Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmedsecond fallacy is that rules 3 to 6 envisage an advertisement of an application for acertificate and inviting objections hereto and disposal of such an application. There is, however, nothing in the Act or the rules which requires the licensing authority to invite objections before grant of acinema licence. The right to object is at the initial stage when acertificate is applied for by the intending applicant for such a certificate. But there is no provision for inviting objections when the application is for a permanent orcinema licence or a touring cinema licence. There is no provision in the Act or Rules which requires advertisement of such an application inviting objections and consideration of the objections before grant of a cinema licence. In A this case the application which was turned down by the Distt. Magistrate was one for renewal of acinema licence. The application for a noobjection certificate and granting of the same had passed muster long before on 10th February 1976 and appellants had n ot raised any objection to the grant ofcertificate. When the present appellants objected to the renewal of acinema licence it was not the stage for grant of acertificate but it was the stage of renewal oflicence subsequent to the stage of granting of acertificate, when there was no statutory obligation on the licensing authority to invite objections nor were the appellants entitled to file objections and nor were they entitled to be heard. A right to notice by reason of any rule of natural justice, which a party may establish, must depend for its existence upon proof of an interest which is bound to be injured by not hearing the party claiming to be entitled to a notice and to be heard before an order is passed. If the duty to give notice and to hear the party is not mandatory, the actual order passed on a matter must be shown to have injuriously affected the interest of the party which was given no notice of the matter [see Cosmosteels Private Ltd. v. Jairam Das Gupta &Ors. There was no statutory or mandatory duty to hear the appellants. There fore, there is no substance in the grievance that before granting renewal of such licence the State Government in the appeal filed by the third respondent had not heard them and that such a decision was rendered in violation of the principles of naturalin the aforementioned case this Court in terms held that a rival in cinema business has no locus standi to question the validity of the order under which the other person has been granted a cinema licence, but as the only contention raised on behalf o f the appellants does not commend to us and, therefore, the appeal is likely to fail on that ground alone, it is not necessary to explore this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents.