CHANNAVEERAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner's Counsel - Sri B. A. Lokesh, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents 1 and 2, in the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that as per allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner intended to start the video parlour and with that intention, he made an application to the District Magistrate (Addl.), Raichur District, Raichur, on 18-3-1989 and 4-10-1990, for the grant of licence to exhibit films on Television Screened through V. C. R. at House No. 1-2-93/1-2-79, at Devadurga Town, Raichur District. According to the petitioner, acting under the Rules of 1984, the respondent No. 2, called for the report from the concerned authorities as required under the Rules of 84, that is the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screened through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 'rules of 84' and the concerned authorities submitted the reports. The petitioner's case is that he had invested his life savings on the video parlour to comply with the requirements of the rules. Petitioner had been called for the licence being granted, but instead of licence being granted, the petitioner was intimated by Respondent No. 2, as per endorsement that his application for grant of the licence to run the video parlour in Devadurga Town, was rejected until further orders of the Government by 2nd respondent's order dt 29-5-1991. It was mentioned and indicated in the preamble of the order that the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Home Department, vide their letter No. H. D. 66 CNA 91, dated 26-3-1991, had directed the authorities not to issue fresh licenses nor to renew the licenses to video parlour pending repealment of Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screened through VCR (Regulation) Rules, 1984 or until further orders. This is the reason on the basis of which the application of the petitioner for the aforesaid licence had been rejected.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 29-5-1991, of the learned District Magistrate at Annexure-A, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has annexed the copy of the letter of the Government of Karnataka, issued from the Office of the Commissioner and Secretary, to all the District Magistrates, as Annexure-B, to this Writ Petition and Annexure-B, shows that in 1991, in view of certain policy decisions being taken by the Government and announced by the Chief Minister in his Budget speech on 11-3-1991, the Secretary, Home Department of the Government of Karnataka, issued directions to the District Magistrate not to issue fresh licence nor to renew the licence to the parlours pending repealment of Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screened through VCR (Regulation) Rules, 1984 or until further orders. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the vires act, legality of Annexure-B as well has asserted in the petition that this communication is altogather illegal.