The judgment emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and the principle that a power given to do a certain thing in a certain way must be done in that way or not at all.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner has challenged an order dated September 25, 2020 passed by the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division, Jalpaiguri, acting as appellate authority under Section 5(4) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1954 Act").

2. One Ramindra Singh (since deceased) was the owner of a cinema hall known as "Payel Theatres". Upon his demise, the petitioner (who is the daughter of late Ramindra Singh by his second wife), applied on January 13, 2016 for transfer of the licence in the name of her mother Smt. Tara Devi Singh and her younger brother Jasminder Singh jointly. On such application, the licensing authority, that is, the Additional District Magistrate (G) at Jalpaiguri, issued a provisional licence on June 20, 2018 in favour of the petitioner herself for running the said cinema hall temporarily for a period of 90 days from the date of the order, on fulfilment of the conditions as stipulated in the said order granting licence.

3. The petitioner challenged such grant of provisional licence, asking for permanent licence, before the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division, in an appeal bearing Case No. Misc./01/LMR/2018. The Commissioner, in the capacity of appellate authority under the 1954 Act, disposed of the said appeal vide Order No. 4 dated December 11, 2018, observing that neither the petitioner nor the contestant in the said appeal, namely, Smt. Satminder Kaur (respondent no. 4 herein) had been able to produce any succession certificate. However, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the Additional District Magistrate (G), Jalpaiguri granting provisional licence in favour of the petitioner.

4. Subsequently, respondent no. 4 (the first wife of late Ramindra) took out an application for grant of permanent licence in her favour on August 19, 2020, before the Divisional Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, that is, the appellate authority itself.

5. Vide Order No. 2 dated September 25, 2020, the Commissioner allowed the application of respondent no. 4, treating the same as Revision Case No. Misc/01/LMR/2020 under Section 5(4) of the 1954 Act, directing the Additional District Magistrate (G) at Jalpaiguri (licensing authority) to issue a provisional licence as per provision of the 1954 Act in favour of respondent no.4 for a period of 180 days. Respondent no. 4 was further directed to submit the succession certificate of late Ramindra Singh from the competent authority as well as pay all pending Government dues within the stipulated period.

6. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has taken out the present writ petition.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the Commissioner, being the appellate authority, did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order allowing an original application for grant of licence. It is submitted that, under Section 4 of the 1954 Act, the District Magistrate has been conferred with the authority to grant licences. Section 5(4) of the Act provides for an appeal against an order of a licensing authority by any aggrieved person before the Commissioner of the Division comprising such District, where the licensing authority is the District Magistrate. The said provision also provides for a revision by the State Government, of its own motion, of any order passed on appeal under Section 5(4)(a) or any order of a licensing authority, from which an appeal lies under Clause (a) but no appeal has been preferred.

8. Learned senior counsel places reliance on Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) By LRs. and others v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, (1975) AIR SC 915 , wherein the Supreme Court, by placing reliance on Taylor v. Taylor,1876 1 Ch 426 D, held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contends that a review of an or