LAWS(ALL)-1990-11-9

CHUNI LAL GUPTA Vs. K P SINGH

Decided On November 13, 1990
CHUNNI LAL GUPTA Appellant
V/S
K. P. SINGH, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SONBTAANDRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application under Section 12 of the contempt Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") the applicant has desired that this Court may take contempt proceedings against Sri K. P. Singh, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, and Sri P. K. Srivastava, Entertainment Tax Inspector, Robertsganj, to punish them for having wilfully flouted the order of this Court dated 19th April, 1990 passed in writ petition No. 6483 of 1987 Chunni Lai Gupta v. State of U. P.

(2.) THE applicant runs a video show parlour. It appears that under the provisions of U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act. 1951, the applicant was being required to pay entertainment tax at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day, i.e. Rs. 1050/- per week towards the running of his video parlour. THE applicant challenged the said levy as unauthorised by filing a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petttion No. 6483 of 1987. While entertaining the writ petition, by an order dated 26th March, 1987. a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim order which was to the following effect :- "In case the petitioner pays the rate of Rs. 500/- per week towards the entertainment tax and furnishes security for the balance to the satisfaction of the District Entertainment Tax Officer, Mirzapur, the respondents shall not interfere with the running of his business of exhibiting pictures. THE petitioner shall be entitled to exhibit the picture only on complying with the aforesaid conditions. In the event of default this stay order shall stand automatically vacated". THE above order was subsequently confirmed by an order dated 27-11-1987.

(3.) IT is in this background that the present application for contempt has been filed on the allegation that the order of the first respondent while effecting the closure of the video parlour acted in flagrant violation of the stay order dated 19th April, 1990 granted by this Court. According to the applicant the opposite parties have committed a contemptuous act in passing the order dated 25th October, 1990 and directing the closure of the video parlour.