DHARAMSHIBHAI VIRJIBHAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996 confirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Information & Broadcasting Department, State of Gujarat by its order dated 19.9.1996 in cancelling the Video Cinema licence of the petitioner, on the ground that there is a breach of Rule-11 of the Gujarat Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by Video) Rules; 1984 and Condition No.4 of the Licence as the petitioner found to be running Video Cinema in the premises without N.A. permission.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he is carrying on the business of running Video Cinema Theatre in the name of Valam Video Cinema at Varachha Road, Surat and the Video Cinema licence was granted in his favour on 3.12.1993 and subsequently, the licence was renewed on two occasions for a period of 6 months and one year respectively. The District Magistrate, Surat issued a notice dated 19.2.1996 to the effect that the petitioner had not produced the N.A. permission before the respondent authority and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled. It appears from the record that the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice and thereafter, the respondent No.1 - District Magistrate, Surat passed the impugned order dated 25.5.1996 in cancelling the petitioner's licence and also rejecting his renewal application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996 in cancelling the Video Cinema licence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government i.e. the respondent No.2 who initially granted the stay however, subsequently, vide order dated 19.9.1996 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri R.R.Marshall, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that 85 persons in the said area i.e. Varachha area, Surat are running Video Cinemas in the premises without N.A. permission and their licences are not cancelled. He has further submitted that even the very appellate authority has remanded the matter to the District Magistrate in cases where the Video Cinemas were being run in a premises without N.A. permission and therefore, similar treatment should be given by the appellate authority in favour of the petitioner and therefore, it is requested on behalf of the petitioner to remand the matter to the appellate authority so that similar treatment be given to the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are other Video Theatres in the same locality such as Soneri, VIP and New Akshar who are not having N.A. permission and their plans are also not sanctioned and the action is only taken against the petitioner and the petitioner has been singled out and given discriminatory treatment. It is further submitted by Shri Marshall, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that if the Video Cinema of the petitioner is closed down then in that case the very building will be used for other purpose and that too without N.A. permission as in the area in question most of the occupiers/persons are not having N.A. permission and still either they are carrying on the business and/or they are residing and therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to run the Video Cinema.