The main legal point established in the judgment is that grant-in-aid can only be cancelled prospectively on the violation of the terms and conditions from the date of the order and not retrospectively.

( 1 ) IN the present writ petition petitioner has sought the following relief:

"i. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned order dated 15. 4. 97 passed by the respondent No. 2 contained in annexure7 to the writ petition; ii. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to realise any amount on the basis of the impugned order dated 15. 4. 1997 and also not to give effect to the recovery memo No. 289 dot 5. 5. 97 issued pursuant to the order, aforesaid; iii. to issue any other such order or direction which may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; iv. award costs to the petitioner. "

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: petitioner being encouraged by the incentive scheme dated 21. 07. 1986 issued by the State of u. P. submitted an application before the Licensing Authority under Rule 3 (1) of the U. P. Cinematography Rules, 1951 for raising a permanent construction of a cinema building under the name and style of Bhagwan Talkies, Katra, Shahjahanpur. The licensing authority after due consideration accorded the permission for raising the construction of permanent cinema hall. After completion of construction of the permanent cinema building petitioner submitted an application for grant of licence for the exhibition of feature films under the scheme before the respondent No. 2, who after inspection of cinema premises has directed the petitioner to exhibit the feature films w. e. f. 18. 03. 1989 and also accorded the benefit provided under the scheme dated 21. 07. 1986. Under the scheme dated 21. 07. 1986 the petitioner was entitled to recover the entertainment tax but was not liable to pay and entertainment tax for the period of two years. In the third year, the petitioner was required to deposit only 25% of the entertainment tax collected from the viewers at the time of charging admission fee and the remaining 75% benefit under the grant-in-aid scheme. Similarly for the fourth and fifty year, the petitioner was required to deposit only 50% of the total tax collected arid the remaining amount was in the nature of aid given to the petitioner in the gratu-in-aid scheme. Instead of making any payment in cash towards aid, under the grant-in-aid to the State Government entitled the owner to appropriate 100% collected by him for the first two years towards aid similarly to the extent of 75% in third year and to the extent of 50% each for fourth and fifth year. The petitioner after accordingly, availed the benefit of grant-in-aid scheme w. e. f. 18. 03. 1989, the date on which the petitioner has been accorded permission to avail the benefit. It appears that on 08. 01. 1993 the petitioner has sold the cinema building by executing a sale deed to the respondent No. 3 w. e. f. 08. 01. 1993. Respondent No. 3 carried on the business of exhibiting the feature films on the said building.

( 3 ) ON 13. 07 1995 a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement already accorded in his favour on 19. 03. 1989 and as such he was directed to deposit the entertainment tax amounting to rs. 12,29,618. 88p. The petitioner in compliance to the aforesaid show cause notice filed detailed reply stating therein that there was no bar in selling the cinema premises in favour of the respondent No. 3. who has also agreed to bear all the consequences with regard to the exhibition of the feature films by executing an indemnity bond. It appears that the. respondent No. 2. instead of deciding the issue, referred the matter to the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13. 07. 1995 and thereafter, respondent No. 1 after considering the entire facts and circumstances arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not required to deposit the aforesaid amount since has not violated any of the terms and conditions me