Holding

The Act and Rules do not obligate the licensing authority to invite objections or hear objectors for a quasi‑permanent cinema licence, so the State Government’s order is valid.

Summary

The petitioners, residents of a locality, claimed that they were denied a hearing when the State Government granted a quasi‑permanent cinema licence to the third respondent, alleging a breach of natural justice. The dispute arose after the District Magistrate, acting as licensing authority, refused to renew a temporary cinema licence and later, on appeal, the State Government approved a quasi‑permanent licence. The petitioners argued that, having objected to the earlier grant of a no‑objection certificate, they should have been heard before the renewal decision. The Supreme Court held that the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952 and the 1972 Rules only require invitation of objections at the stage of applying for a no‑objection certificate, not at the stage of granting or renewing a quasi‑permanent licence. Consequently, there was no statutory duty to hear the objectors, and the State Government’s order was valid. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the licensing authority must invite objections and afford a hearing to objectors before granting or renewing a quasi‑permanent cinema licence.
Whether the principles of natural justice apply to the renewal of a quasi‑permanent cinema licence under the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952.
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the licence grant.

Legislation cited

M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952s. 3, s. 4, s. 5(3), s. 6, s. 7, s. 8

Subjects

natural justiceprocedural fairnesscinema licenceno‑objection certificateadministrative lawM.P. Cinema Regulation Actquasi‑permanent licenceright to be heardstatutory interpretation

Judgment

792

,.._I A MOHD. IBRAIDM KHAN & ORS.
v.
STATE OF . MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
September 21, 1979
[D. A. DESAI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
B
M. P. Cinema (Regulalio11) A ct 1952, S. 5(3) & M . P. Cinema (Regulaiion)
Rules 1972, Rules 3-6-0bjection not raised at the time of granting of no·
objection certificate-Objection if could be raised at the time of renewal of
quasi-permanent cinema licence.
Administrative 'Law-Doctrine of natural justice-Administrative au1hority-
Whe1her under a duty to give notice and hear parties at every renewal o(licence
c - Whether under a d111y to hear all objectors. M .P, Cinema (Regulation) Act
1952 S. 5(3) .
The third respondent made an application for the grant of a licence for a
temporary cinema and the District Magistrate issued a no-objection certificate
for a period of six months. Th.is licence was renewed twice but a subsequent
application for renewal was turned down by the District Magistrate on the
D ground that the 'Paras Talkies' with a permaneht cinema licence in the locality
which was hitherto closed had started functioning and, therefore, a renewal of
the licence for a temporary cinema in the same locality would not be proper.
fu appeal, the State Government granted respondent 3 a licence for a quasi-
permanent cinema.
The appellants in their writ petition questioned the validity of the State
Government's order on the ground that they were the residents of the locality
E l\;lld that they had objected to the grant/renewal of licence on the ground that
there was a mosque, a madrasa and a temple in the vicinity of the place, where
the cinema house was to be constructed and even though their objections were
upheld by the licensing authority, the District Magistrate, they were not heard
in the appeal preferred by the third respondent and therefore, the order of the
first respondent, State of M.P. suffers from the vice of violation of the principll!S
of natural justice. The High Court held that since the matter was left to the
F
subjective satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government on being
satisfied that there was no impediment to the grant of such a licence, was per- ;
fectly justified in granting the same, and that this was not a fit case for inter-
ference by the High Court.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants,
that as objectors they should have been heard and the decision arrived at by the
G State Government in appeal at their back was violative of t~ principles of
natural justice and the order granting licence for a quasi-permanent cinema by
the State Government was invalid.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (
H (per Desai, J.)
t. There is, nothing in the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952 or th~
M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules ' 1972 which require the liceming authority
IBRAHIM KHAN V. M. P. STATE 793

to invite objections before grant of a quasi-pe~manent cinema licence. The A
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. [800 G]

2. There is no provision in the Act or Rules which requires advertisement
of such an application inviting objections and consideration of the objections B
before grant of a cinema. licence. [800 H]

3. . When an application for no-ebjection certificate is m'~de, objections have
to be invited in the prescribed manner. There can conceivably be hundreds of
objections. There is no question of glving 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 constit1,1ted C
-.legal proceedings, conceivably a writ petition under Article 226. [800 CJ
-. 4. 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 licens-
ing authority refusing licence. A fortiori .every objector to grant of a no-objec-
tion certificate is not entitled to file an appeal if such certificate is granted re-
jecting his objections. Nor in an appeal by the aggrieved person within the
meaning of s. 5(3) every objector to the grant of a no-objection certificate
D
is entitled to be joined as a party respondent or that each objector is entitled
to notice of he.aring of the appeal. [800 D-E]

5. The grievance of the appellants is 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. [800 F] 'E

Jasbhai Motibliai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haii Bashir Ahmed & others
[1976) 3 SCR 58, referred to.

6. 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 F.
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. [801 C·D]

Cosmosteels Prh·ate Ltd. v. Jairam Das Gupta & Ors. [1978] 2 SCR 422
at 431, referred ·to
G
7. There is. no substance in the .grievance that before granting renewal of
q~asi-permanent cinema 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. [801 E]

In the instance case, the application for a no-objection certificate. and rrrant·
ing of the same had passed muster long before, and appellants had not ;aised H
any obj~ction to the grant of no-objection certificate. When the pre.sent appel·
lants ob1ccted to the renewal of a quasi-permanent cinema licence it was not the
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 011 the licensing authority to
invite objections nor were the apPellants entitled to file objections and nor were
they entitled .to be heard. [801 A-Bl

(per Pathak J. concurring)
B 1. Rules 3 to 6 of the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules 1972, relate to the
grant of a "No objection" certificate. The ·Rules contemplate the filing of ob-
jections by local residents. That is the stage at which opposition to the estab-
lishment of a cinema at the proposed sit~ is specifically provided for. Any
person opposing the establishment of a cine.ma at the proposed location must do
so before a 'No-objection' certificate is granted. [802 B-C]
c In the instant case, the appellants did not file any objections opposing the
establishment of a cinema. A ''No-objection certificate" \\'as granted to the
third resixmdent. When the third respondent applied for a cinema licence, the
appellants for the first time opposed the application on the grounds that there
was a mosque, a madrasa and a temple in the vicinity. Inasmuch as these
grounds were avai~able to them during the proceedings for considering the grant
of a :No-objection' certificate, and they did not file any objection, they cannot
D now be permited to plead a right to oppose the grant of ?- cinema licence. Had
they, opposed the grant of the 'no-objection' certificate and their objection had
made out a good case, it is possible that the 'no-objection' certificate would have.
been refused, and in that event the applicant would not have applied for a
cinema licence. [802 D-F]

2. The question whether a person who has objected to the grant· of: a ~'No-
E 'objectioll certificate" certificate when that grant was under consideration can
subsequently oppose the grant of a cinema licence on the same grounds which
he took against a 'no-objection' certificate left open. [802 H-803 A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1199 of 1978.
F Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
6-3-1978 of the Madhya. Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 109/78.
G. B. Pai and s. S. Khanduj!Jl for the Appellant'.
S. K. Gambhir for Respondents 1 and 2
G. L. Sanghi, R. K. Jain and R. Ramachandran for Respondent
G
No. 3
The following Judgments were delivered :

DESAI, J .-This appeal by special leave is directed against the
order date 27th December 1977 fna<le by the State of Madhya Pra-
H desh granting a licence for a quasi-permanent cinema to respondent
no. 3 Prem Narayan son of Ganpatlal Chonksey, proprietor, Chitra
Talkies, Lalbagh, Burhanpur (M.P.) against which a petition under
IBRAHIM KHAN v. M. P. STATE (Desai, J.)

...
795

Article 226 of the Constitutiou by the petitioners was dismissed in
limine by a speaking order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesli at
Jabalpur on 6th March 1978.

Third respondent made an application on 5th December 1975 for
grant of a licence for a temporary cinema and the District Magistrate
having jurisdiction issued a no objection certificate vide his order B
dated 10th February 1976 for a period of six months. This licence
was renewed upto 30th June 1976, and there was a further renewal
up to 30th September 1976. A subsequent application for renewal
was turned down by the Dist!. Magistrate by his order dated 29th
June 1977 on the ground that Paras Talkies with permanent cinema c
licence which was closed, has now been functioning in the, locality
and, therefore, a renewal of the licence for, a temporary cinema in
the same locality wonld not be proper. Respondent 3 carried the
matter in appeal to the State Government, which by its order dated
27th December 1977 granted a licence for a quasi-permanent cinema
under the M.P. Cinemas Regulation Rules to the third respondent. I)
Present petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 questioning the
validity of the aforementioned order of the State Government con-
tending, inter alia, that they were the residents of the locality wd
that they had objected to the grant/renewal of licence on the ground
that !hero is a mosque, a madrasa and a temple in the vicinity of the
place where the cinema house is to be constructed, and even though
their objections were upheld by the licensing authority, the District
Magistrate, they were not heard in the appeal preferred by the third
respondent and, therefore the order of the first respondent State of
Madhya Pradesh suffers, inter alia, from the vice of violation of the
principles of natural justice. The High Court was of the opinion that
District Magistrate was not influenced by the fact that there was a F
mosque, a madrasa1 and a temple, in the vicinity of the place where the
proposed cinema house was to be constructed but he was influenced
by an extraenous consideration that a cinema having a permanent
cinema licence having been re-opened in the locality there was no need
for a cinema house with a 'temporary' licence and that it being a matter G' '
left to the subjective satisfaction of the State Government, the State
Government on being satisfied that there was no impediment to the
grant of such a licence, was perfectly justified in granting the same
and, therefore, it is not a fit case for the interference of the High Court.
The appellants thereupon filed' this appeal by special leave.

Mr. G. B. Pai, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners,
contended that if before the grant of a quasi-permanent cinema
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

licence to the third respondent the appellants filed their objections
which were taken into consideration by the Distt. Magistrate, the
licensing authority, and if the Distt. Magistrate was impressed by the
objectiol)s and, therefore, turned down the request for 'temporary'
cinema licence, in an appeal against this order· preferred by the third
respondent, the appellants as objectors should have been heard and
B the decision arrived at by the, State Government in appeal at their
back was violative of the principles of natural justice and the order
granting licence for quasi-permanent cinema by the State Govern-
ment is invalid.
Before we examine the contention canvassed on behalf of the
C appellants it is necessary to glance at the relevant provisions of M.P. ..'
~

Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 ('Act' for short). Section 3 im-
poses a restriction on exhi.bition by means of cinematograph at any
place other than a licensed place under the Act in compliance with
the restrictions or conditions imposed by such ·licence. Section 4
nominates the Distt. Magistrate as the licensing authority. Section
D 5 provides for conditions subject to which licence may be granted.
Suh-s. (3) of s. 5 provides for an appeal at the instance of a person
aggrieved by the. decision of a licensing authority refusing to grant a
licence under the Act to the State Government wlthin the prescribed
time. Section 6 confers power on the State Government or the local
authority to suspend exhibition of films. Section 7 prescribes penalties
E for breach of the provisions of the Act. Section 8 confers power to
revoke a licence under certain circumstances. Two things emerge
from the Act. Firstly, that the detailed provisions for the grant of
a licence at three distinct stages by the licensing authority in the pro-
cess of licensing a cinema honse, viz., (i) no-objection certificate for
f the site on which the cinema house is to be constructed; (ii)
licence for the building conforming to the rules where films are ta
be exhibited; and (iii) licence for exhibition of films, are made in
the rules and there is no reference to any of the three licences in the
Act. Secondly, appeal Is provided against the order of a licensing
authority only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the &cision
G of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence. The Act does
not confer any right of appeal on a person who might have raised
objections before the licensing authority against the grant of a no-
_, objection certificate or a licence, as the case may be. This last aspect
is very relevant because the entire submission is based on a conten-
tion that the appellants who had objected to the grant of a no-objec-
H tion certificate to the third respondent and had succeeded in per-
suading the licensing authority to refuse the grant of no-objection
certificate to the third respondent, yet in the appeal preferred by the
IBRAHIM KHAN,v. M. P. STATE (Desai, J.) 797

third respondent under sub-s. (3) of s. 5 the State Government did A
not give any opportunity to the successful objectors and decided the
appeal at their back and thus the decision was rendered ;n violation
of the principles of natural justice.
Next a reference to the relevant rules of M.P. Cinema (Regula-
tion) Rules, 1972 ('Rules' for short), is necessary. Rule, 3(2) pro- B
vides that any person desirous of erecting a cinema or converting
existing premises into a cinema shall first make public his intention
to do so by exhibiting a notice in the prescribed form on a board on
the proposed site in such positio11 that it ca11 be· plainly seen from the
public thoroughfare upon which the site of such proposed cinema
abuts. This rule also prescribes the size of the board, the language c
in which the notice is to be published, etc. Sub-rule (3) of rule 3
provides that such a person shall also give a similar notice in writing
to the licensing authority, viz., the Distt. Magistrate and make an
application to him for the grant of a no-objection certificate specifying
therein whether the application is in respect of a permanent cinema
or a touring cinema. Rule 4 provides that on receipt of notice as D
envisaged by Rule 3, the licensing authority shall, at the cost of the
applicant, notify the public such intention in such manner by publica-
tion in newspapers or otherwise that may deem fit for the purpose
of inviting objections. It is also obligatory for the licensing autho-
rity to issue a notification inviting objections specifying therein the
period within which the objections shall be lodged. Rule 5 provides E
. that the licensing authority shall on the expiry of the period for receipt
of the objections, submit a report to Government in the prescribed
form along with his recommendation whether i no-objection certi-
ficate shall be granted or not. Sub-rule (2) of rule 5 ·provideSI that
Government may, on consideration o. the report of the lic!lJlsing F
authority, grant permission for the. issue of no-objection certificate to
the applicant or may refuse to grant the same. Rule 6 provides that
without prejudice to the right of the licensing authority to refuse or
to grant a cinema licence under rules 101 and 102, the iicensing
authority may, with the p.reviaus permissiorr of the Government, grant
.a certificate to the applicant that there is no objection to the location G
of the cinema at the site notified by the applicant under rule 3. Sub-
rule ( 2) of rule 6 provides that such a no-objection certificate shall
be valid for a period of two years from the date of issue in the case
of permanent cinemas and six months in the case of touring cinemas.
Chapter VII of the Rules provides for cinema licence. Rule 100
provides .that an application for a cinema licence shall be accom- ff
panied, amongst others, by a copy of the no-objection certificate ·
issued under rule 6. Rule 101 coolers power on the licensing authority
798 SUPREME COURT REPOB.TS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

'A to grant a cinema licence on being satisfied that all the relevant
rules have been complied with and the licence may be granted on such
terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as the licensing
authority may determine. There is a proviso to rule 101 which reads
as under: ·

B "Provided that a touring cinema licence shall not be
beyond the district of issue and ordinarily touring cinema
licences shall not be granted for places where there is al-
ready a perman~nt or a quasi-permanent cinema, but the
. licensing authoritY ·may in its discretion permit a touring
· cinema to operate at a place where there is already a per-
c . manent or quasi-permanent cinema on ·occasions such as
fairs and melas or when the touring cinema exhibits films
of a kind different from those exhibited by non-touring
cinemas such as educational films or where it caters for a
different public''.
D In view of .the proviso, it would not be correct to say that District
Magistrate was influenced liy an extraneous' consideration, namely,
re-opening of Paras Cinema with a permanent cinema licence while
. rejecting the application of third respondent for ·renewal of his licence
by the order dated 29th Ju'ne 1977. Rule 104 ·provides that a
permanent cinema may be licenced for any period not exceeding one
E
year and a quasi-permanent cinema or a touring cinema may be
licenced for any period not exceeding six months.

A perusal of the relevant provisions of the· Act and the Rules
extracted above will show that there are various stages through which
F an application for a cinema licence has to be processed. It also
lrllJispires that the Rules envisage issuance of a licence for a perma-
nent cinema and quasi-permanent cinema as well as a touring
cinema. Cinema in this context has been defined to mean any place
wherein an exhibition by means of cinematograph is given. · )
G Rule 3 envisages construction of a cinema house and as a first
step, selection of a site where the cinema house is to be located. Selec-
tion of the. site and its clearance by the licensing authority by the
issuance of a no-objection certificate is an important step to be taken
in the direction of finally ·constructing a cinema house and obtaining
a licence for the same. In the facts of this case the application .is
H for a quasi-permanent cinema licence. When any person desires to
erect a cinema meaning' ther~by a place where an exhibition by means
of cinematograph is to be given, · he must apply for. a no-objection

'
IBRAIIIM KHAN v. M. P. STATE (Desai, J.) 799

certificate in respect of the site where the cinema house is to be con- A
structed. Whe6 such an application is received, it is to be advertised
in the manner. prescribed inviting the public to file objections. After
considering the objections the licensing authority has to decide whe- :
ther to grant or refuse the no-objection certificate. This scheme
emerges from the. combined reading of rules 3, 4, 5 and 6. · Chapter
III in the Rules prescribes rules in respect of the building to be used B
as a cinema house; . But before one proceeds to construct the cinema,
' obtaining of a no-objection certificate relevant to the site. on which
cinem1 house is to be .constructed is a sine. qua non.
The grievance of the appellants is that when their objections were .
invited before issuance of a no-objection certificate and they filed th(1 · c
same, the Distt · Magistrate as the licensing authority was persuaded
to accept the objections and reject the application for a no-objection
certificate and thereafter when under s. 5(3), of the Act respondent
3 preferred an appeal against the refusal to grant the no-objection·.
certificate, the appeal was decided at the back of those who had not
"only filed objections but whose objections had prevailed with the D·
licensing authority and, therefore, the order granting the no-objection
certificate is violative of the principles of natural justice. There
is a two-fold fallacy in this submission.
Respondent· 3 has been granted a quasi-permanent cinema licence
by the State Government allowing his appeal against the order of the E
Distt. Magistrate refusing such a licence. The order impugned by
the third respondent in the appeal before the State Government is
Annexure 'E' dated 29th June 1977. A perusal of this particular
order would show that initial application for no-objection certificate
1
was made by the third respondent on 5th December 1975. An ad-
F
vertisement was issued in 'Nai Duniya' dated 5th January 1976 by
the licensing authority that an application for a temporary ('inema
licence akin to· quasi-permanent cinema licence has been received and
that any one who desires that· no-objection certificate Ehould not be ·
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 grant-
ing 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
sho)'l's that a no-objection certificate was granted limited to the dura-
tion of six months. Thereafter a quasi-permanent cinema licence
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A. was granted. This licence was renewed twice over np to and inclu- ,
sive 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 Gov-
B ernment and which appeal was allowed giving rise to the petition· by
the appellants.

When an application for no-objection certificate is made, objec-
tions have to be invited in the prescribed manner. Th.ere can con-
c ceivably 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 '
D
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 l?Y·the aggrieved person within the
meaning of s. 5 (3) every objector to the grant of no-objection certi-
E ficate is entitled to be joined as a party respondent or that each objec-
tor is entitled to notice of hearing of the appeal. However, the grie-
vance of the appellants is without merits because initiall)1_ when no-·
objection certificate was applied for they did not object and one who
has not objected cannot subsequently make a grievance [see lashbluii
Motibha Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bi1fhir Ahmed & Others( 1) ].

The second fallacy is that rules 3 to 6 envisage an advertisement
of an application for a n<Hlbjection certificate and inviting objections
thereto and disposal of snch an application. There is, however, nothing
in the Act or the rules which requires the licensing_ authority to invite
G 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
H requires advertisement of such an application inviti~g objections and
(!) (1976) 3 s. c. R. 58.
IBRAHIM KHAN v. M. P. STATE (Desai,!.) 801

corlsideration of the objections before grant of a cinema licence. In A.
this case the application which was turned down by the Di5tt. Magis-
. trate was one for renewal of a quasi-permanent cinema licence. The
application for a no-objection certificate and granting of the same bad
passed muster long before on 10th February 1976 and appellants ha:!
not raised any objection to the grant of no-objection certificate. When ·
the preseni appellants objected to the renewal of a quasi-permanent 8'
cinema licence it was not the stage for grant of a no-objection certi-
ficate but it was the stage of renewal of quasi-permanent licence sub-
sequent 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 C
were they ent!tled to be beard. 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 noti~e 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 D"
matter must be shown to have injuriously affected the interest of
the party which was given no notice of the matter [see Cosmo-
stee(s 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 re-
newal of such licence the State. Government in the appeal filed by E.
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 y
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 appel-
fants thus being proxies for snch 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 Desai's case (supra) to make good
. the submission. Undoubtedly, in the aforementioned case this Court G
in terms held that a riva1 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
of 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. H

(!) [1978] 2 S. C.R. 422 at 431.
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A There was only one point raised in this appeal and as there is no
merit in it, the appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order as to
costs.

PATHAK, J.-1 agree that the appeal should be dismissed, but on
a very short ground. '
B
Rules 3 to 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules,
l
1972 relate to the grant of a "no-objection" certificate, that is to say
a certificate that there is no objection to the .location of the· cinema at
the site proposed by the applicant. The Rules contemplate the filing
of objections by local residents. That is the stage at which opposition
c to the establishment of a cinema at the proposed site is specifically pro-
vided for. Any person opposing the establishment of a cinema at the
proposed location must do so before a "no-objection" certificate is
granted. The appellants did not file any objection at that stage. A
"no-objection" certificate was granted to the third respondent. There-
D after, when the third respondent applied for a cinema licence, the
appellants for the first time opposed the application. They opposed it
on the ground that there was a mosque, a "madarsa" and a temple in
the vicinity and that the cinema, if permitted, would constitute. an
obstruction and annoyance to the local residents. Inasmuch as those
gronnds were available to them during the proceedings for considering
E the grant of a "no-objection" certificate, and they did not file any objec-
tion, they cannot now be permitted to plead a right to oppose the grant·
of a cinema licence. Had they opposed the grant of the "no-objection"
certificate and their objection had made out a good case, it is possible
that the "no-objection" certificate would have beeu refused, and in
that event the applicant would not have applied for a cinema licence.
F On that short gronnd the appeal must fail.

That being so, I need not consider the further question whether in
an appeal filed by an applicant, who has been refused a cinema licence,
the local residents, who had objected to the grant of' a "no-objection"
certificate and \lad been over-ruled, can contest the claim of the appli-
G
cant to a cinema licence. Rule 102 empowers the licensing authority
to refuse a cinema licence if the cinema is likely to cause obstructjon,
inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to residents, or
pasiers by in the vicinity of the cinema. Rule 6 declares that the grant
of a "no-objection" certificate is without prejudice to the right of the
H licensing authority to refuse a cinema licence under Rule 102. I leave
the question OpYn whether a person who has objected to the grant of
a "no-objection" certificate when that grant was under consideration
IBRAHIM KHAN V. M. P. STATE (Pathak, J.) 803

can subsequently oppose the grant of a cinema licence on the same A
grounds which he took against the "no-objection" certificate.

The appellants not being entitled to challenge the grant of the
cinema licence to the third respondent, I need express no opinion on
!lie validity of that grant.
B
The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.