JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. The petitioner Jagdish Prasad Singh who is the proprietor of Sanjay Talkies, Jeanpur, Azamgarh has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seek ing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-2-1992 passed by the Institutional Finance Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 17 of the writ petition as also a writ of man damus commanding the respondents to grant licence to the petitioner under the grant-in- aid scheme dated 21st July, 1986 and all benefits accruing thereunder.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner submitted an application on 19th August, 1998 under Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Cinematograph Rules, 1951 hereinafter referred as the Rules) before the District Magistrate/licensing Authority Azamgarh Respondent No. 2, who granted permission under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules vide order dated 17th July, 1989. THE petitioner started the construc tion of the permanent cinema building and after completing the same made an ap plication for grant of licence for exhibiting cinematograph films on 23-3-1990. Ac cording to the petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate (F) directed the authorities concerned to make physical inspection and to submit their reports upto 31-3-1990. In compliance with the direction issued by the ADM (F) the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh, the Fire Of ficer Azamgarh and Executive Engineer PWD Azamgarh and the Superintendent of Police submitted their reports by 31-3- 1990. According to the petitioner, he had made an application before the Electricity Department for giving the requisite report and had deposited prescribed fee as also Form B on 29-3-1990. When nothing was heard from the licensing authority on the petitioner's application for grant of licence the petitioner made a repre sentation to the Secretary Institutional Finance Government of U. P. Lucknow on 5th December, 1991 for redressal of his grievance. THE State Government had passed an order on 23-2-1992 directing the District Magistrate/licensing Authority to consider the grant of licence in accord ance with the Rules without the benefit of grant-in- aid. THE order dated 23-2-1992 is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties we find that the application filed by the petitioner was complete in all respect except a certificate from the Electrical Inspector to Government cer tifying that the electrical installation con form to the required standard and the ex isting Rules as provided in Rule 4 (d) of the Rules. However we find that Rule 5 of the Rules empowers the licensing authority to temporarily dispense with the require ment of Clause (d) of Rule 4 in a situation where the Electrical Inspector on receipt of a written request from the applicant has for six weeks therefrom being unable to carry out the inspection. Thus the licens ing authority has the power to dispense with the requirement of Rule 4 (d) of the Rules when within six weeks the Electrical Inspector has not been able to carry out the inspection of the electrical installations in the premises of the petitioner. In para graph 8 of the counter- affidavit filed by Shri Chandra Prakash Tripathi, District Entertainment Tax Officer, Azamgarh, on behalf of Respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the petitioner had filed the requisite certificate on 17th November, 1991. Thus the petitioner had complied with all he requirements of Rule 4 of the Rules. The question is as to whether the submission of the certificate of the Electri cal Inspector alongwith application filed under Rule 4 is mandatory or is only direc tory. As already mentioned above Rule 5 of the Rules empowers the licensing authority to temporarily dispense with the requirement of the certificate of the Electrical Inspector as envisaged under Rule 4 (d) of the Rules if the Electrical Inspector has been unable to carry out the inspection within six weeks.