VAISHNAV TALKIES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Vaishnav Talkies. Budhnapur, Azamgarh, through its partner Shri Subedar Singh has filed the present petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th July. 1992 passed by the District Entertainment Tax Officer respondent No. 3 on behalf of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh filed as Annexure-22 to the writ petition and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the licence to the petitioner under the grant-in-aid scheme dated 18th July. 1989 and to grant the facilities under the said grant in aid scheme.

(2.) The petitioner claims itself to be a newly constructed cinema hall. According to the petitioner, on 20th July. 1991 the petitioner submitted an application seeking permission for the construction of a permanent cinema building under Rule 3 of U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 asked for reports from the various authorities, i.e., S.D.O. Budhanpur, Tehsildar Budhanpur, Superintendent of Police. Azamgarh. Executive Engineer P.W.D. Temporary Division. Azamgarh and Entertainment Tax Officer. Azarngarh all of whom submitted their reports. The petitioner has set up a case that the A.D.M. (Administration) who was at the relevant time Officer Incharge of Entertainment Tax himself made a spot inspection and after being duly satisfied vide order dated 24th September. 1991 had asked the respondent No. 2 for countersigning on the site plan and also strongly recommended for grant of permission for raising the construction of the new cinema hall on the proposed land of the petitioner. According to the grounds taken by the petitioner in this petition, it was under a bona fide impression that the permission for raising the construction has been granted by the A.D.M. (Admn.) who was the Officer Incharge on behalf of the licensing authority and started construction of the permanent cinema hall. The petitioner vide letter dated 30th September, 1991 informed the respondent No. 2 about the start of construction of the cinema building. After having constructed the cinema building, the petitioner made an application for grant of licence on 6.4.1992 before respondent No. 2 i.e., the licensing authority on which the respondent No. 2 called for reports from the concerned authorities.

(3.) It appears that since no formal permission under Rule 3 (3) of the rules had been granted to the petitioner by the District Magistrate/ Licensing Authority, the District Entertainment Tax Officer on behalf of the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority, Azamgarh informed the petitioner vide letter/order dated 6.4.1992 that the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit of grant-in-aid scheme under the G.O. dated 18th July. 1989. The petitioner was further informed that further action on the application for grant of licence can be taken if the petitioner is prepared to take a licence without grant-in-aid. The letter/order dated 6th July, 1992 is under challenge in the present petition.