K. J. ROHEE, J.:- Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Admit.

3. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

4. On 28.04.2004 Shri. R. K. Kharat, Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur City raided Vijay Talkies. It was alleged that the punter found that obscene film was being exhibited in the talkies. In that connection Crime No.3035/2001 under Sections 292, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of Cinematography Act was registered against the proprietor and employees of Vijay Talkies at Police Station, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.

5. On 5th May, 2004 a show cause notice was issued to the proprietor of Vijay Talkies by Joint Commissioner of Police.

Nagpur City (Respondent No.3) calling upon him to show cause as to why his licence under Bombay Cinemas (Regulation Act), 1953 should not be cancelled. In response to show cause notice the appellant submitted his reply on 20th May, 2004. In paragraph No.7 of the said reply it was submitted by the appellant that the Commissioner of Police, who is licencing authority under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953, has no power of sub-delegation. There is no dispute that under Section 4 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 the licencing authority is the "Commissioner", The power to cancel licence vests under Section 8 of the Act in the Licencing Authority. On 18.01.2005 Respondent 'No.3 passed an order cancelling the licence of the appellant. The appellant challenged the said order before the State Government under Section 8-A of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. The appellant specifically raised ground No.4 to the effect that the Joint Commissioner of Police has no power to cancel the licence granted by the Commissioner of Police. It was also mentioned in ground No.4 that sub-delegation of power by the Commissioner of Police to Joint Commissioner is bad for want of express provision in the statute. By order dated 15.042005 the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3). The said order shows that it was urged on behalf of appellant that respondent No.3 had no power to cancel the licence. However, this submission was negatived by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister by holding that under Section 8 of Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 read with Rule 131 of the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966, Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3) was empowered to cancel the licence. The order does not however give any clue as to why the Hon'ble Minister came to such conclusion.

6. Thereafter the appellant filed Writ Petition No.941 of 2007 challenging the order of the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister raising the same grounds. While countering those grounds it was urged on behalf of the learned A.G.P. that Section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 clearly provides that power of cancelling licence can be exercised either by Deputy Commissioner of Police or by Joint Commissioner of Police.

7. While dealing with this submission, in paragraph 9 of the order, the learned Single Judge held that the submission made by the appellant/petitioner about delegation of power is misconceived. The learned single Judge further observed that Section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 clearly provides for exercise of powers of the Commissioner and that it is not the case of the petitioner (present appellant) that the Commissioner did not authorise the Joint Commissioner of Police to perform his power. Consequently the learned single Judge held that he did not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner (present appellant) and that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. He, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. The said order is under challenge.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Section 7 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It reads thus:

"7. Commissioner.

(a) The State Government may appoint a Police Officer to be the Commissioner of Police for Greater B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document