DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DIST MAGISTRATE Vs. VEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent (Veerappa) was granted a licence to run a touring cinema at Soolebavi, Hunagund taluk in Bijapur District. He made an application on 13th January, 1986 for the renewal of the saidilicence. On 16-1-1986 he also made an application for the issuance of fresh 'No Objection Certificate' (to be shortly called 'NOC') under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (to be called the 'Rules'). The application for the renewal of licence was pending. It was at this stage the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Act came into force. That contained an enabling provision, by reason of which all those who held licence for touring cinema on or before 25-2-1987 (the date on which the amending Act came into force) were enabled to renew their NOC for converting the touring cinema into a semi permanent cinema. Since the applications of the respondent for grant of NOC were under consideration, in that the Tahsildar, Hunagund, on 8-8-1986 replied him that the matter was under such consideration. He contended that he had fully satisfied the amendment and, therefore, he was entitled to the conversion prayed for, for which he had filed the necessary form in Form-AA in accordance with Rule 105 of 1987 Rules on 22-5-1987. That application for conversion was rejected on the ground that he did not have licence for running a touring cinema on 25-2-1987. He thereupon preferred a writ petition 12140 of 1988 praying for a direction to consider his application and to quash the order dated 8-8-1988. But the prayer for conversion was dismissed. The learned Judge, while dismissing the said prayer was of the view that inasmuch as the application of the petitioner dated 13-1-1986 for the renewal of the licence was pending, likewise the application for grant of fresh NOC dated 16-1-1986 was also pending, after being processed upto a certain stage, the appellant was not to be blamed and, therefore, having regard to the intendment of the amending rules, he would be entitled to conversion. In support of this conclusion the learned Judge, relied upon the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in Srinivasa Chilra Mandira v Government of Karnataka, 1987(3) Kar. L.J. 612: ILR 1988(2) Karnataka 1431. Accordingly, the learned Judge, allowed the writ petition and directed the District Magistrate, Bijapur, to reconsider the application for conversion dated 22-5-1987 and pass orders in accordance with law and in view of the directions issued by him.

(2.) Aggrieved by this Judgment the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bijapur, who was the respondent in the writ petition has come by way of appeal.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate for the Appellant urges before us that the learned single Judge was wrong in issuing the direction because the application made for renewal of licence dated 13-1-1986 was still to be considered and orders passed. Further there was not even a valid NOC for which an application for renewal was filed on 16-1-1986. Assuming without admitting that after consideration of NOC licence would have been granted and it would have been renewed only up to 31-12-1986, thereafter what would have happened, one cannot hazard and guess only when there was licence for the year 1987 and if the NOC was valid on the relevant dale, viz., 25-2-1987, he would be entitled to conversion. In this case both these are totally lacking. The learned Judge was not right in relying on the ruling reported in 1987(3) Kar. LJ. 612 : ILR 1988(2) Kar. 1431. For two reasons factually it is distinguishable. In the said ruling two writ petitions came to be dealt with and both the petitioners therein had licence on the crucial date, viz., 25-2-1987, and NOC came to be renewed, whereupon conversion was directed. Here it is not so.