SITAR VIDEO HALL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sitar Video Hall, which claims to be situate in Sakaldiha Bazar of the District Varanasi (now District Chandauli) and had constructed a Pacca Video Hall of bricks and mortor for exhibiting video films as per the requirement of Rule 27(2) of U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951, has come up with a prayer to quash the communication made by the District Magistrate, Varanasi vide his letter dated 30/04/1994 (as contained in Annexure 4) that its application filed for grant of relaxation after giving proper thoughts has been disallowed. A further prayer has been made to quash the communication dated 4/01/1995 made by the Government to the District Magistrate, Varanasi as contained in Annexure 2 to the Supplementary Affidavit intimating that in view of the fact that the required permanent building has not been constructed in terms of Rule 4 of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition By Means of Video) Rules, 1988 nor it appears that there is chance of fulfillment of the requirements enumerated therein for lack of required space besides keeping in mind the public convenience and Government revenue there does not appear to give any justification for relaxation of Rule 13 of the Rules aforementioned. A prayer has also been made to declare Rule 11(1) of the Rules as ultra vires.

(2.) Sri S. K. Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that Rule 11(1) of the Rules ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In this context he also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in M/s. Classic Video Hall v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 JT SC 227 : (AIR 1993 SC 2330). He also contended that the reasons given for refusal to relax the Rules aforementioned are arbitrary and unreasonable and thus Prayer Nos. 1 and 2 are fit to be granted.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel Sri K. S. Kushwaha, appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3, who was impleaded vide Courts order dated 10/07/1995, on the other hand, contended that there is no merit in the contentions of Sri Chaubey. In fact the petitioners challenge to vires of Rule 11 was upheld by this Court as well as by the Honble Supreme Court and valid reasons have been given in the impugned communications for refusal to the prayer for relaxation made. Sri Kushwaha pointed out that video films were screened in an old structure hall taken on rent by the petitioner as stated in Paragraph 5 of the Counter-Affidavit which fact has not been denied in Paragraph 8 of the Rejoinder of the Petitioner.