RAJESH TALKIES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Rajesh Talkies, Kasba Sonbarsa, district Gorakhpur through its proprietor Shri Ram Shanker Prasad has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1st September, 1989 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, respondent No. 1 filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept its application for the grant of licence and further to grant permanent licence to the petitioner as are the requirement of the Rules without seeking compliance of the order dated September 1. 1989. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the 20th Amendment made in the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner the benefits under the Government Notification dated 21st July, 1986,

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner started construction of a Cinema building in Qasba Sonbarsa, district Gorakhpur from 1st December, 1987. However in June, 1988 the petitioner submitted an application to the State Government through the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, seeking condonation of his failure to obtain prior approval of the site plan on which the proposed permanent building is being constructed as required under Rule 3 of the Rules. After completing various formalities by the petitioner, the concerned authorities submitted their reports that the construction is being done in accordance with the site plan as per the Rules. The State Government vide order dated 1st September. 1989, Informed the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, that the petitioner would be granted exemption under Section 10 of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for Rule 3 (3) and Rule 8 (2) only after he fulfils three conditions, namely, that the petitioner would dismantle the Kachcha wall on south west and north west and construct another wall after a distance of 20 feet from the building. It was further communicated that the petitioner would not get any advantage of grant-in-aid under the Government Notification for the new Cinema Hall and that the petitioner will have to give an undertaking to that effect in writing. Further the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 in respect of exemption under Rule 3 (3) and Rs. 35,000 in respect of exemption under Rule 8 (2) of 1951 Rules. The aforesaid order dated 1st September, 1989, is under challenge in the present petition. This Court vide order dated 16.2.1990 passed the following interim order :

(3.) According to the petitioner, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 50.000 in compliance with the interim order dated 16.2.1990 and the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur had granted licence on 22.4.1990. It appears that vide order dated 9th September, 1990, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of grant-in-aid scheme by the District Magistrate. Gorakhpur. The fact regarding grant of licence and benefit of grant-in-aid given to the petitioner has been mentioned in C.M. Writ Petition No. 211 (Tax) of 1997 filed by the petitioner which vide order dated 4.10.1999 has been directed to be listed along with the present petition. To complete the sequence of fact, it may be mentioned here that subsequently the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur vide order dated 18.2.1997 cancelled the grant-in-aid given to the petitioner. The said order dated 18.2.1997 was challenged by the petitioner in C.M. Writ Petition No. 211 (Tax) of 1997, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 6th May, 1997 and the order cancelling the grant-in-aid was quashed by this Court.