ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER ALATHUR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the licensee of an existing cinema at Alathur from 1973 onwards, applied to the Executive Officer of the Alathur Panchayat-1st respondent for a renewal of the said licence with effect from 3-9-1976, on which date the previous licence was due to expire The 2nd respondent, who is the proprietor of another cinema theatre in Alathur, appeared before the 1st respondent and raised objections against the grant of renewal of the petitioner's licence. The first respondent overruled those objections and renewed the petitioner's licence for a period of 11 months from 3-9-1976. Ext. P1 is a copy of the renewed licence issued to the writ petitioner. The 2nd respondent thereupon preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Palghat, challenging the legality and validity of the action taken by the 1st respondent in granting a renewal of the writ petitioner's licence. It would appear that the District Collector passed an interim order in the said appeal staying further proceedings pursuant to the decision of the 1st respondent to grant a renewal of the licence to the petitioner. In implementation of the said order of stay the 1st respondent issued to the petitioner the communication Ext. P-2 directing the petitioner to stop exhibition of film shows in his theatre with effect from 3 9-1976 until disposal of the stay petition and appeal which were pending before the Collector. The petitioner appeared before the District Collector and moved for vacating the stay order passed by him. Ultimately, by the proceedings evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 19-9-1976 the District Collector upheld the order passed by the first respondent granting the renewal of the petitioner's licence and di missed the 2nd respondent's appeal Simultaneously, the order of interim stay that had been passed by the District Collector on 3-9-1976 was also vacated. The petitioner immediately commenced exhibition of cinematograph films in his theatre with effect from 19-9-1976 itself. Later, to his utter chagrin, he was served with an order dated 4-10-1976 passed by the Executive Officer, Alathur Panchayat (1st respondent) informing him that the Government of Kerala in their letter dated 30-9-1976 had stayed the proceedings of the District Collector dated 17-9-1976 rejecting the appeal petition of the 2nd respondent and that in view of the said stay order issued by the Government the District Collector had issued directions to the first respondent to take necessary action in the matter On the said ground, the petitioner was called upon by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P-5 to discontinue with immediate effect the exhibition of films in his theatre on the basis that by reason of the stay order issued by the Government the order of the 1st respondent granting a renewal of the petitioner's licence "stood automatically cancelled" and the original order of interim stay issued by the District Collector dated 3-9-1976 was brought into force. Aggrieved by the said action taken by the first respondent the petitioner has come up to this Court with this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P-5, as well as the proceedings of the State Government referred to therein.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government wherein it is submitted that a revision petition has been filed before Government by the 2nd respondent challenging the order Ext. P-4 passed by the District Collector, Palghat and that "when the 2nd respondent filed the Revision Petition before the Government, the Government was satisfied that it is necessary and desirable that the petitioner be restrained from running his Cinema in pursuance of the licence granted, which is impugned in the Revision Petition" It is on this basis that the validity of the interim order issued by the Government pursuant to which the 1st respondent has proceeded to take consequential action as per Ext. P-5, is sought to be supported.

(3.) It has to be remembered that in dealing with the revision petition filed by the 2nd respondent the Government was not acting in its general administrative power, but was only discharging the statutory functions entrusted to it under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. The powers of the Government while dealing with such a revision petition have necessarily therefore to be gathered from the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the Government can act only within the scope and ambit of the authority conferred on it by those provisions. It is under S.12 of the Act that the Government have been conferred the power to revise proceedings taken by any of the subordinate authorities under the Act. That section reads: