MANJUNATHA TALKIES Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these Writ Petitions, respondents 2 and 3, had filed the application for vacation of the interim order. These Writ Petitions relate to the same parties and with respect to the matter of semi-permanent theatre (in a Village in Yelburga Taluk, Raichur District ). The petitioner, namely, Manjunatha Talkies, through its proprietor had challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/district Magistrate, Raichur, dated 15-1-1997 - Annexure D, to these Writ Petitions (in Writ Petition No. 2693 of 1997) and order dated 24-2-1997 (subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 6482 of 1997 ). In both these cases, for the vacation of interim order, lengthy arguments were exchanged and in the circumstances, I thought it fit that the case may be heard and finally disposed of by one common judgment instead of dealing with the application for vacation of interim order, as counter and rejoinder have been exchanged. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in both these cases as well as the learned Government Advocate - Smt. Bharati Nagesh, appearing in both these petitions on behalf of the District Magistrate, Raichur.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner - Manjunatha Talkies, had been running semi-permanent talkies in Mangalore Village of Yelburga Taluk, in the Raichur District, since long, that is from 1983 or so. According to petitioner's case on 9th June, 1980, the property bearing Panchayat No. 6/757, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 471/d, in Mangalore Village was jointly purchased by the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, from one Sri. Virupakshappa and with all fairness, the learned Counsels for the parties do not dispute this position and it appears to be an admitted fact. Petitioner has, no doubt, stated that subsequently due to some financial problems, respondents 2 and 3, had given up their rights in the said property by taking the land and executed in the deed and on this basis, the petitioner claimed himself to be the full owner of the property. The petitioner's case that he filed the application before Respondent No. 1, for N. O. C. and after obtaining the same, the petitioner moved application for licence after submitting the necessary fee and documents and licence was granted to the petitioner for exhibiting the films and since thereafter, that is, 1983, according to the petitioner, the petitioner had been exhibiting the films and had sought renewal of licence from time to time. The petitioner's further case has been that he filed an application for conversion of his touring talkies into a semi-permanent talkies under Rule 105 and by order dated 15-3-93, Annexure B, to the Writ Petition 2693 of 1997, Respondent No. 1, that is, the Deputy Commissioner i. e. District Magistrate, allowed the conversion of touring talkies into semi-permanent talkies and petitioner thereafter, obtained renewal of licence from time to time for showing the cinema. Petitioner's further case is that on 18th Nov. 1996 and 20th Dec. 1996, the petitioner submitted application for renewal of his licence for the period from 1-1-1997 to 31-12-1997, to 1st respondent and submitted all the necessary documents. The petitioner has annexed a copy of that application - Annexure C to Writ Petition No. 2693 of 1997. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, to the renewal application, filed objections that licence be not renewed on the ground that they are holders and owners of the property to the extent of 25% each, while 50%, they admitted belonged to the present petitioner. According to the petitioner's case, this stand of the respondent was only to harass the petitioner. The 1st respondent according to the petitioner, vide Annexure D, rejected the application for renewal of the licence, dated 15-1-1997.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from that order dated 15-1-1997, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2693 of 1997. This Court granted an interim order in that Writ Petition which order Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashwathanarayana Rao, had been pleased to pass, read as under. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Issue rule. By way of an interim order, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner as per Annexure C, without reference to the objections of respondents 2 and 3, and if necessary, conditions are satisfied to issue licence as prayed for. This order is passed subject to final result of the case. The learned Government Advocate, was directed to take notice.