RUCHIKA THEATURE GROUP Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the impugned order dated 11-2-1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Licensing by which he refused to issue a licence to the petitioner to perform or exhibit the play "Bhutto". This order is purported to have been passed in persuance of Regulation 120 of the Regulations known as Licensing and Controlling places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and performances for Public Amusement, 1980 (hereinafter to be called the Regulation of 1980) framed in exercise of powers under Section 28 of Delhi Police Act.

(2.) The Petitioner Society No. I is registered under the Societies Registration Act styled as Ruchika Theatre Group and is engaged in staging plays for amusement and information of general public. The petitioner society decided to stage a play entitled Bhutto which is a satire on the would leaders and heads of government. Though apparently a sensitive topic yet a live democracy has to live with such freedom of expression.

(3.) The petitioner society applied for exemption from entertainment tax. One of the conditions for obtaining grant of such a certificate is that it is on no profit basis. Alongwith an application for exemption, the petitioner had submitted the script of the play. Evidently the entertainment tax officer, Delhi, saw no objection in the script because he granted such a certificate by his letter of 24-9-1982 and communicated it to the petitioner. The play was to be staged from 14th October to 16th October, 1982. However, on 12th October, 1982 respondents wrote to the Sri Ram Centre for Art and Culture authorities directing them not to allow the petitioner to stage the play as no permission has been obtained from the licensing authorities. This was the first information to the petitioner that any objection was being taken. He thereupon went to the Deputy Commissioner's office and came to know of the Regulations of 1980 and moved the application dated 12th October, 1982 seeking the grant of the necessay permission. One would normally have thought that as the play was to be staged on 14th October, 1982 some decision would be taken immediately; but that is not how the bureaucracy moves. That is why we find that on 13th October, 1982 the licensing authorities curtly told the petitioner that its application was being considered and he should not hold the play. To show its annoyance and power a further step was taken when the entertainment tax officer informed the petitioner on 13th October, 1982 that exemption already granted to him has since been withdrawn by the Administrator of Delhi. The Licensing authorities thus had without taking any decision apparently succeeded in their move namely not to permit the staging of the play. The matter was kept hanging and dealt with in a leisurely manner and ultimately the impugned order was passed on 11th February, 1983 by which the permission to issue a licence to perform or exhibit the play has been refused. That is what has made the present petitioner come to this Court impugning the said order.