BALAJI THEATRE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner additionally added that in the meantime, the second respondent issued an order dated 05.06.2012, holding that he has exhibited films without licence and hence, concluded that his act is in contravention of Cinema Regulations and directed him to accept his guilt and directed him to compound the alleged offence, failing which, threatened that his theatre would be closed. He questioned the legality of the order before this Court in W.P.No.15024 of 2012, on the ground that no one can compel the other to admit the guilt and direct to compound the offence by paying penalty. This Court, by its order dated 01.11.2012, stayed the order of the second respondent. As mentioned earlier, this Court was pleased to allow W.P.No.20546 of 2009, and directed the second respondent to issue the licence under Form 'C', forthwith. He wrote very many letters to the second respondent seeking him to comply with the orders of the Court. In the meantime, the petitioner's son raised some disputes on partnership. In view of the same, the second respondent issued summons directing him to appear before him, on the issue of partnership disputes. As the second respondent is only a licencing authority, the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the second respondent to conduct the proceedings in W.P.No.33140 of 2013. This Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition which was assailed in W.A.No.2445 of 2013 and the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to admit the above appeal and granted stay of proceedings. In view of the same, there is no embargo for the second respondent to issue Form 'C', but the second respondent was adamant in issuing Form 'C' licence. Hence, left with no other alternative, he was constrained to file contempt petition in Cont.P.No.947 of 2014, before this Court. The notice, in the above contempt petition, was returned and fresh notice was ordered. It is quite obvious that the second respondent is evading service in the above contempt.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that the second respondent is insisting to procure films only with the film division alone, despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order coupled with the order of this Court made in W.P.No.20546 of 2009. As this Court had given a verdict in his favour, he is procuring films from films division and he is also procuring from third party sources which fact is unacceptable to the second respondent, who is using all devises against him to stall the smooth running of business, by issuing various illegal orders. The second respondent had already issued orders, stalling the smooth functioning of the petitioner's theatre, which had been prevented by the timely orders of this Court. The present impugned order issued by the second respondent, which is signed by the third respondent is another off-shoot of the arbitrary action of the second respondent. The petitioner further added that the second respondent had passed the impugned order without any legal backing as the same is issued with a mala-fide intention to paralyse the functioning of the theatre. The respondent had mentioned some allegations in his impugned order and had not sought any explanations with the petitioner before passing the capital punishment of sealing of the theatre. If the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to explain to the allegation levelled against the theatre, it would have clearly demonstrated with the respondents as to how the allegations are false and how the alleged complaint is false.