Back
2009 Supreme(All) 766
[2009(4) ADJ 615 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND ARUN TANDON, JJ.
GIRISH DHODHI .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7338 of 2009, decided on 6th March, 2009)
Counsel :
Govind Krishna for the Petitioner; S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951—Rule 3(3)—Licensee under—Claimed by petitioner—In respect of a cinema hall—He filed petition quashing orders, dated 18.7.2007 and dated 17.10.2008 and also seeking writ of mandamus commanding State-respondents to provide facility of grant-in-aid, as per “1986 Scheme”, notified under G.O. dated 21.7.1986—In view of said “1986 Scheme”, petitioner filed an application on 18.11.1988 under Rule 3(3) of Rules of 1951 for permission being granted to construct a permanent cinema hall over plot No. 248/249 in Mohalla Jahangirabad, Dist. Mau—Refused by D.M. by order dated 23.1.1990 in view of non-compliance of statutory conditions—In another application of petitioner, State Government passed an order, dated 25.4.1990 providing compounding fee of Rs. 50,000 be deposited (as petitioner had constructed cinema hall without obtaining permission)—Hence, petition against—Dismissed by Division Bench on 17.10.2001—After dismissal of that writ petition department issued letter, dated 18.5.2005 requiring petitioner to deposit Rs. 29,06,499.18, which represented entertainment tax collected by petitioner during period his earlier writ petition remained pending—Hence, petitioner filed second writ petition No. 934 of 2005—Petitioner had violated provisions of Rule 3(3) of Rules of 1951 as it was run without permission—Held, State Government legally justified in recording a finding that case of petitioner was not covered by “1986 Scheme”—Thus, rightly refused to provide any financial assistance to petitioner under order dated 18.7.2007—Hence, no interference in impugned order. [Paras 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28]
By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner claims to be licensee under U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1951’) in respect of a cinema hall namely Shree Palace, Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau. He has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 18.7.2007 and dated 17.10.2008 as well as for a writ of mandamus commanding the State respondents to provide the facility of grant-in-aid as per the scheme notified under Government Order dated 21.7.1986. The facts in short relevant for deciding the present writ petition are as follows :
3. Petitioner alongwith others is a partner of M/s. H.J. Enterprises and is carrying on the cinema business at Maunath Bhanjan, Mau under the name and style of Shree Palace. On 21st July, 1986 the State Government came out with a scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘1986 Scheme’) for the purposes of providing financial assistance for construction of permanent cinema halls provided the exhibitor satisfied the conditions mentioned in the said scheme.
4. Motivated by the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner is stated to have filed an application on 18th November, 1988 under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1951 for permission being granted to construct a permanent cinema hall over Plot No. 248/249 situate in Mohalla Jahangirabad, Maunath Bhanjan, District-Mau. Under an order dated 23.1.1990 permission to construct the cinema building was refused by the District Magistrate in view of non-compliance of the statutory conditions.
5. Not being satisfied with the order so passed, the petitioner made a representation before the Ministry of Finance, State of Uttar Pradesh. The representation remained pending. The petitioner simultaneously moved an application for grant of financial assistance for exhibiting the feature film, which also remained pending with the District Magistrate, Licensing Authority under the Rules, 1951.
6. It was found that the petitioner had constructed and had run the cinema hall without obtaining the permission under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1951 from the concerned authority. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for exemption being granted and the offence being compounded. On the application of the writ petitioner, the State Government passed an order dated 25.4.1990 providing that compounding fee be deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and exemption be granted under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1951 with a further specific condition that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any incentive under grant-in-aid scheme. For the same petitioner was required to furnish a written undertaking. The petitioner was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compounding fee alongwith an undertaking, noticed above, in the office of the District Magistrate.
7. Against the order of the District Magistrate dated 23.1.1990 and the order of the State Government dated 25.4.1990 the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12796 of 1990 with the following prayer :
“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated 23.1.1990 and 25.4.1990 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2 to issue the cinematograph exhibition licence to the petitioner ignoring order dated 25.4.1990 of respondent No. 1 and also to accord approval under Rule 3(3) of the rules.
(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction, as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
8. A Division Bench of this Court by means of order dated 18.5.1990 stayed the operation of the order dated 25.4.1990 passed by the State Government, referred to above. The petitioner is stated to have been permitted to run the cinema in the aforesaid hall but was not provided any financial assistance under 1986 Scheme. The other partner of the petitioner namely Harish, therefore, submitted an application in the a
