AVELIN R LUIS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant or issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice bearing no. Ent 76/94-95, dated 12-10-1994, issued by the respondent-licensing authority and annexed as annexure b to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus being issued against the respondent-licensing authority directing the licensing authority to consider the petitioner's application for regrant of licence as per rule 6 of the Karnataka exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette (regulation) rules, 1984 thereafter referred as 'rules of 1984' and for regrant of the same forthwith without insisting upon for production of 'no objection certificate' from the superintendent of police, dakshina kannada district, mangalore, as ,per demand made in the impugned notice and for such other direction, order or writ as this court deems fit. The interim relief, which has been claimed, and main relief claimed in this writ petition are almost of the same impact and nature. It is one of the well settled principles of law that if the granting of interim relief would tantamount to the granting of the main relief in the case, then, it should not be granted ordinarily, because it will be allowing of this writ petition without giving opportunity of hearing to the other side. In such circumstances, the petitioner's counsel desired and submitted that there is short point involved purely of law and let the petition be heard on merits and be decided finally to which government counsel did not have any objection. As such, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-sri e.g. Sri dharan and Sri n. Devadas, the learned government advocate.

(2.) the facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, who is the owner of the land bearing site no. 135/21c of karkala town has applied for licence under rule 4 for exhibiting cinematograph through television and through video cassette. He, in pursuance of the necessary certificates having been issued and furnished by the concerned authorities, was granted licence for the purpose on 26-4-1989 and on the basis thereof, he had been exhibiting the cinematographs. Further, according to the petitioner, the said licence was regranted from time to time till the licence last granted which has been valid upto 31-10-1994. The petitioner has produced a copy of the same as annexure a to this writ petition. The petitioner has averred that he is entitled to the regrant of the licence for the next period commencing from 1-11-1994, as per rule 6 of the Karnataka exhibition of films on television screen through the video cassette (regulation) rules, 1984, for short, 'rules of 1984', so, he had moved an application for the regrant of the licence under rule 6. That the licensing authority has issued a notice annexure b which is dated 12-10-1994, calling upon the petitioner that application for regrant can be considered only after the production by petitioner of the no objection certificate obtained from the superintendent of police, dakshina kannada, mangalore district.

(3.) the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that the above impugned notice is illegal and unwarranted by law.