JANTA TOURING TALKIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment under challenge in this appeal which is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is rendered by the learned Single Judge on March 5, 1998 in Special Civil Application No. 359 of 1998 whereby prayer made by the appellant to set aside decision of the Licensing Authority of not renewing licence for its touring cinema beyond January 31, 1998, is turned down.

(2.) The appellant had established a Janta Touring Cinema at village Babra, on February 11, 1986 pursuant to a licence issued by the Licensing Authority and Executive Magistrate-cum-Mamlatdar, Babra. The licence was renewed from time to time upto December 31, 1997. The respondent No.3 was earlier operating another touring cinema at Babra which was subsequently converted into a permanent cinema. As the licence granted to the appellant was to expire on December 31, 1997, the appellant had made an application for renewal of the licence. The appellant was informed by the respondent No.2 that because of the fact that a permanent cinema was established at village Babra, the appellant's licence was not liable to be renewed. According to the appellant, it had taken up the matter with the State of Gujarat as a result of which its touring cinema licence was renewed upto January 31, 1998. This decision of the State of Gujarat was challenged by the respondent No.3 before the High Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 122 of 1998. On the date of hearing of the petition, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Additional Chief Secretary as well as the Licensing Authority had made a statement that the Government would not renew the licence granted to the appellant beyond January 31, 1998. In view of that statement, the respondent No.3 had sought permission to withdraw the petition. The respondent No.3 was accordingly permitted to withdraw the petition but Court had also reserved liberty to the appellant to challenge the decision of the Licensing Authority of not renewing touring cinema licence. The petition was accordingly disposed of by order dated January 17, 1998. The decision not to renew the licence beyond January 31, 1998 was communicated to the appellant which was challenged by it in Special Civil Application No. 359 of 1998. What was pleaded by the appellant in the petition was that the respondent authorities had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them on a misconception of law by proceeding on the basis that if a permanent cinema is set up, licence for touring cinema cannot be renewed and, therefore, the impugned decision was liable to be set aside. It was also averred that the word "place" in the proviso to Rule 107 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 means a site and not an area in the sense of a town or village as construed by the respondents and, therefore, the respondents should be directed to renew touring cinema licence of the appellant. By filing the petition it was prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the action of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in not renewing the licence beyond January 31, 1998 was ultra vires the provisions of the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1953 ('the Act' for short) and the Bombay Cinema Rules 1954 ('the Rules' for short) as well as Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. The appellant had also prayed to direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to renew the licence beyond January 31, 1998.

(3.) Reply affidavit was filed by respondent No.3 controverting the averments made in the petition. In the said reply it was pleaded that permanent cinema of the respondent No.3 having been established in Babra village, touring cinema licence of the appellant was not liable to be renewed and, therefore, the petition should be rejected.