VIRENDRA POKHARIYAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DEHRADUN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to demand of additional license fee for running private video channels which was deposited under the interim orders of the Hon'ble Court in a time bound manner as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner is a cable operator and is operating the cable television network in the name and style of M/s Uttaranchal Cable Network and was duly permitted to operate the same under the permission of District Magistrate Dehradun and registration with the Head Post Office Dehradun as provided in the Cable TV Network Act and rules made therein. The registration is valid up to 31.3.2017. The petitioner started two private channels to run the live video program and also transmitted Hindi songs and movie for which the permission was granted by the District Magistrate, Dehradun pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WPMB No.38 of 2007 dated 10.04.2007 and applicant was directed to deposit a license fee of Rs.2400/- under Rule 17 and a sum of Rs.100/- per television set under Rule 17(2) and a sum of Rs.1000/- advance entertainment tax per week. Earlier, the identical demand, i.e., the license fee was challenged by one Harish Malhotra before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition (M/S) No.671 of 2010, which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Against the said order of dismissal, special appeal was preferred before the Court, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the District Magistrate for demand of license fee was quashed. The order of the Division Bench was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09.12.2014. According to the petitioner, during this period, the petitioner was compelled to pay the amount demanded towards the license fees, additional charges, and weekly tax which the applicant was not entitled to pay and thus deposited a sum of the Rs.38,89,000/- from 2007 to 2015. Several cases with similar controversy were also filed before this Court, which were decided following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 09.12.2014, and an order for refund of the amount/deposited/paid under the interim orders of the Court was passed. The petitioner also made a representation before the respondent authorities, annexing copy of the order dated 9.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and requested for refund of money, but no heed was paid towards his request. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Stand has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the State of Uttarakhand has enacted Uttarakhand Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015 vide Notification dated 09.11.2015 and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the tax. However, the learned Standing Counsel could not convince the Court that the said Amendment is retrospective in nature.