2004 (3) TMI 786 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant for exemption to touring cinema u/r 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order of the High Court shows that the principal reason which has prevailed with the High Court in setting aside the order dated 30-10-1995 is that there is no reference made therein to Section 11 of the Act. In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in forming the opinion which it has done. The power to grant permission has been specifically conferred on the Government by the proviso inserted to Rule 14 by GO No. 1326 dated 6-9-1995. It is noteworthy that in an earlier round of litigation initiated by Respondent 1 the constitutional validity of GO No. 1326 dated 6-9-1995 was upheld. Merely because Section 11 of the Act was not specifically referred to in the order dated 30-10-1995 that could not have been a ground for setting aside the permission dated 30-10-1995. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law. The appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgement of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored.

Summary

Issues involved:
The question of granting exemption to touring cinema u/r 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957.

Summary:

The appellant, owning a touring talkies named Sri Karthikeya Touring Talkies, sought exemption under u/s 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. The State of Tamil Nadu framed the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, including Rule 14 which imposed restrictions on the distance between cinemas. An amendment to Rule 14 was made by Government Order No. 1326 dated 6-9-1995, altering the conditions for granting licenses to permanent and touring cinemas.

The appellant's touring cinema was initially granted exemption on 4-4-1988, which expired on 28-10-1994. A fresh application for exemption was made on the same day. Meanwhile, a permanent theatre owned by Respondent 1 was established, triggering the applicability of Rule 14. The Government of Tamil Nadu, on 30-10-1995, exempted the appellant from Rule 14 under the proviso inserted on 6-9-1995, directing the issuance of a license.

Respondent 1 challenged this exemption order in the High Court, which was initially dismissed. However, the Division Bench allowed Respondent 1's appeal, leading to the quashing of the exemption order dated 30-10-1995. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the exemption order based on the absence of a reference to Section 11 of the Act. The power to grant permission was specifically conferred by the proviso inserted to Rule 14 by GO No. 1326 dated 6-9-1995. The Court emphasized that the failure to mention the specific legal provision does not invalidate the exercise of power if the authority possesses the legal power.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and restoring the decision of the learned Single Judge.