Supreme Court Disposes Appeals on Competent Local Authority for Cinematograph Licensing After Rule Amendment. Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981 Amendment Substituted Definition of Local Body, Making Development Authority the Consulting Authority and Rendering Municipal Corporation Not Necessary Party.

Case Note & Summary

The litigation arose from disputes over the competent local authority for licensing cinematograph exhibitions and the construction of a cinema building in Delhi. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and another, challenging an interlocutory order in a suit pending on the original side of the High Court. During pendency, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi issued a notification dated May 3, 1994, amending Rule 2 of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981. The amendment substituted the definition of 'Local Body' to mean the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Municipal Committee, or Cantonment Board, depending on the jurisdiction in which the place of cinematograph exhibition was situated. In the present matter, it was admitted that the cinema building was being constructed within the area controlled by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), thus making DDA the consulting authority for licensing instead of the Public Works Department (PWD) under the erstwhile rules. The appellant contended through counsel that because of the change in law, the MCD no longer remained a necessary party to the suit. The Court accepted this contention, observing that the MCD no longer remained a consulting authority. The Court also noted that the owners of the land claimed to be co-owners and alleged that the respondents were proceeding with construction without their consent; they sought impleadment as party-defendants. That application was pending before the learned Single Judge, and the Supreme Court directed that it be disposed of expeditiously. The Court reiterated the Division Bench's observation that any construction made by the plaintiff did not bind the non-consenting co-owners and would be subject to the result of the suit. The DDA contended that no reference had been made to it for approval of the construction plan and therefore it was not bound by the approval granted by the PWD, but the Court refrained from commenting, leaving it open to the plaintiff to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Court referred to its earlier order dated May 14, 1993, wherein the plaintiff's senior counsel had undertaken that if the construction was not in accordance with bye-laws, it might be pulled down by the authorities and the plaintiff would not claim any equities. Pursuant to that order, the MCD inspected the construction and reported that it was not in conformity with the bye-laws. The Supreme Court directed that parties in the suit could lead evidence on whether the construction was in accordance with the relevant rules, and if it was found to be in contravention, the construction would be pulled down without the plaintiff claiming any equities as undertaken. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs. The contempt petition filed by the owners was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate authority and was dismissed as withdrawn. The connected special leave petition was disposed of in terms of the orders in the main special leave petitions. The Court's decision rested on the amended definition of local body under the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981, which shifted the consulting authority from PWD to DDA for areas under DDA's jurisdiction. Consequently, MCD was held not to be a necessary party. The Court also affirmed the principle that construction by one co-owner without the consent of other co-owners does not bind the non-consenting co-owners. The undertaking regarding unauthorized construction was left to be enforced in the pending suit based on evidence. The judgment is primarily interlocutory, disposing of appeals without final determination of the underlying construction dispute.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The appeals were disposed of with no costs; it was held that due to the amendment of Rule 2 of Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi no longer remains the consulting authority, and the licensing authority would consult the Delhi Development Authority; the co-owners' impleadment application pending before the single judge was directed to be disposed of expeditiously; construction by the plaintiff was held not to bind non-consenting co-owners; parties in suit could lead evidence on conformity with rules, and contravening construction could be pulled down without equities as per undertaking; Contempt Petition No. 185 of 1994 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; SLP (C) No. 10137/93 disposed of in terms of orders in SLPs No. 5380-81/93.

Law Points