P M JACOB Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER MULANTHURUTY PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is running a cinema by name "Majestic Talkies" at Mulanthuruthy challenges the order Ext. P1 dated January 6, 1981 passed by the 1st respondent, the Executive Officer, Mulanthuruthy Panchayat refusing to allow his application for renewal of the licence to run the cinema.

(2.) 2nd respondent is the owner of Survey No. 346/2, Mulanthuruthy Village. In 1971 he granted a licence to the petitioner to erect a theatre and run a cinema in 10 cents of land in this survey number. The petitioner constructed a theatre and according to him, he had also to level the land for that purpose and installed the necessary machinery and obtained the requisite licence from respondent 1 who is the licensing authority under the Cinemas (Regulation) Act. He has been running the cinema from 16-12-1972. While the petitioner contends that the licence of the land in his favour was without any time limit, respondent 2 alleges that it was for a period of 5 years which expired on 1-12-1977. However that be, the petitioner used to obtain annual licences from respondent 1 not only till 1-12-1977 but till 1980 without any objection from respondent 2. When he applied on January 5, 1981 for a licence from January 6, 1981, respondent 2 filed an objection, Ext. R1 that even after the expiry of 5 years the petitioner had not vacated the land and that it had therefore become necessary to go to court to get the theatre removed and the land vacated. Respondent 1 thereupon passed the impugned order Ext. P1 that there was no letter of consent or other record to prove the petitioner's title, that he should produce his records, if available as early as practicable as licence could be granted only after being satisfied about the petitioner's title and possession and that he should therefore stop the cinema from that day onwards.

(3.) Both the respondents have filed counter affidavits contesting the Original Petition. Respondent 1 states that in the absence of any record to support the petitioner's title or possession and in view of the objection by respondent 2, the Order Ext. P1 was passed, that even otherwise the petitioner was not entitled to the licence as his application was not presented within the prescribed time and was not accompanied by 'a fitness certificate from the Health Officer. It was stated that although the delay in the submission of the application was not mentioned in the order Ext. P1, that has also been kept in mind in passing the order. By an amendment a further defence was taken that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the Original petition as ho had a statutory right of appeal to the Panchayat. The defence of respondent 2 was that after expiry of the licence on 1-12-1977 he had not given any consent to the petitioner, that he had terminated the licence by a notice sent on 5-11-1980, that respondent 1 was right in rejecting the application for licence as the petitioner had no title or lawful possession of the property, that the application was defective and out of time and that Ext. P1 was correct. While admitting that the petitioner had constructed a theatre and installed machinery, respondent 2 states that the/petitioner has exaggerated in the Original Petition the cost which he had to incur. Like respondent 1 he also contends that no relief should be granted to the petitioner as he had not availed himself of the statutory right of appeal.