G.O. was unconstitutional offending Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution.

(Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in their order in G.O. Ms. 27/LAS/2005 dated 20.09.2005 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.)

The petitioner submits that he has filed an application before the third respondent for grant of Municipal Licence for the purpose of holding Indian Classical Dance at Hotel Al Rasheed, Citadel at Door No.1, 100 Ft. Road, Ellapillai Chavady at Pondicherry. The said application was rejected by the third respondent as per Order dated 12.04.2004 on the ground that there was objection from the Additional District Magistrate and the said order was challenged in W.P. No.32662 of 2004 and this Court, by order dated 15.04.2005, quashed the said order and remitted the matter to the third respondent with a direction to grant temporary licence, pending consideration of grant of permanent licence.

2. The said order was challenged by the third respondent in Writ Appeal on the ground that when the Municipality is considering the grant of permanent licence, there is no requirement of a temporary licence. Accordingly, the Division Bench, as per judgment dated 10.08.2005 in W.A. No.1456 of 2005, directed the third respondent to consider the grant of permanent licence for the purpose of holding Indian Classical Dance within a period of three weeks.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that when his application for licence to hold Indian Classical Dance is pending, the four other hotels run by the politicians of Pondicherry who are having the licence to hold Indian Classical Dance, approached the Local Administration Department to ban the issue of further licence for conducting Indian Classical Dance. The officials of the Government of Pondicherry who are having close contacts with the existing four hotels wanted to create a monopoly in favour of those four hotels and with a view to help those hotels, the Government of Pondicherry issued the impugned Government Order dated 20.09.2005, banning issue of fresh licence for performing Indian Classical and Western Dance.

4. The petitioner further contends that the Government Order was not issued in public interest but only as a measure to help the existing four licence holders which is evident by the fact that prohibition is only for issue of fresh licences and not for total prohibition of conduct of Classical Dance in Pondicherry and therefore, the impugned Government Order is issued only with an intention to reject the petitioner's application for licence and his application alone was pending before the third respondent on the date of the Government Order.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned Government Order, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Government Order dated 20.09.2005 (hereinafter referred to as Government Order) on various grounds, viz.,

a. That the G.O. is per se illegal, violative of the constitutional guarantee given under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

b. That by issue of the Government Order, the right conferred on the citizen by the Constitution of India by way of right to profess any profession or to carry on any trade or business, cannot be taken away;

c. That performance of Indian Classical Dance is not a prohibited profession and as such, the State, by way of an executive order, can only regulate the performance but cannot altogether prohibit the same and any such Government Order prohibiting the public entertainment of Classical Dance is violative of the constitutional guarantee as provided under the Constitution of India;

d. That Indian Classical Dance in all its form is encouraged by the Government of India and other State Governments and Classical Dances are performed even in Government functions and for other social gatherings;

e. Tha