LAWS(SC)-1966-8-2

N S SHETHNA Vs. VINUBHAI HARILAL PANCHAL

Decided On August 25, 1966
N.S.SHETHNA Appellant
V/S
VINUBHAI HARILAL PANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Guj arat quashing the order of suspension of a licence for sale of cinema tickets passed by the first appellant on February 28, 1961.

(2.) At all material times the respondent was carrying on and still carries on the business of exhibiting cinematographic pictures at Lakshmi Talkies in Ahmedabad and had obtained for that purpose a licence for sale of tickets which was valid upto December 31, 1960. On an allegation that through his manager and other employees he was indulging in sale of tickets contrary to the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954, framed under the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, XI of 1953 a notice dated June 14, 1960 was served upon him to show cause why the said licence should not be suspended. On an inquiry having been held by the first appellant, that of ficer passed the impeached order suspending the said licence for a period of two months from the service of the order. But before the inquiry was completed and the said order passed, the period for which the licence was issued expired and an order renewing it for the next year, that is 1961, was passed on December 31, 1960. The impugned order was served on the respondent on March 5, 1961.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order the licensee took out a writ petition in the High Court for setting aside the said order. The plea urged in the petition was that the show cause notice related to the licence for the year 1960 which expired on Decemper 31, 1960 and therefore did not affect the renewed licence for 1961 sought to be suspended by the impugned order. The High Court took the view that the renewed licence was a separate licence and not in continuation of the licence for the year 1960 and a fresh show cause notice ought to have been served for suspending the renewed licence and that not having been done the inquiry was not in consonance with the rules and quashed the order.