DILIPSINH SHERUBHA GOHIL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd March 2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 refusing to renew the video-licence No. 67/94 of the petitioner granted for exhibition of film by video cassette record. The petitioner has also challenged the action and the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 08th April 2003 confirming the order of the respondent No. 1, as also the action of respondent No. 4, who sealed the video cinema house of the petitioner on 28th May 2003; as well as the order dated 17th May 2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 passed in Revision Application preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the petitioner's case in nutshell are as under :

(3.) MR. S. G. Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner, has mainly contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities are unjust, improper and passed without appreciating the facts of the case. It is submitted that the impugned orders are passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without appreciating the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 281.