Supreme Court Restores Single Judge Decision, Upholds Authority's Power to Issue Exemption Order u/r 14.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the Division Bench's judgment and reinstating the Single Judge's decision. It held that the Division Bench erred in quashing the exemption order, as the authority had the power under the proviso to Rule 14, despite not explicitly referencing Section 11 of the Act.

---

---

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.

---