MAHENDRASINH BALVANTSINH GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd March 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 refusing to renew the video-licence No. 66/93 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. 3 dated 09th April 2003 confirming the order of the respondent No. 2, as also the action of respondent No. 4 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahuva) who sealed the video cinema house of the petitioner on 27th May 2003.

(2.) THE facts of the petitioner's case in nutshell are as under : 2. 1 On 02nd November 1993 the petitioner was granted video licence bearing No. 66/93 under Section 3 of the Bombay Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and since then the petitioner has been running a video cinema in the name of "anjali Video Cinema" at Alang Ship Yard, Bhavnagar. The said licence has been renewed from time to time and was lastly valid upto 31st March 2002. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner made appropriate application before the respondent No. 2 on 28th December 2001 to renew the licence for a further period of three years. 2. 2 In pursuance of the said application for renewal of licence, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22nd March 2002 rejected the application of the petitioner. 2. 3 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22nd March 2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3, who vide order dated 09th April 2003, rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 22nd March 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2. 2. 4 Thereafter, the petitioner had closed the said video cinema house in the month of May-2003 for repairing the electrical installations. However, subsequently the respondent No. 4 sealed the video cinema house of the petitioner on 27th May 2003. 2. 5 Being aggrieved by the said actions of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(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. 3. 1 It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner falls under CRZ-III (Coastal Regulation Zone-III), however, the same has not been considered at all by the respondent-authorities and the impugned orders have been passed.