SHYAMA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners applied for permission to make a mini cinema hall in Chakiya, district Varanasi. The District Magistrate by his letter dated 3-11-1989 granted permission to construct the cinema hall. One of the conditions mentioned in the permission letter was that the construction shall be completed within a span of one year. Admittedly, the construction could not be completed within a period of one year from 3-11-1989, and consequently before expiry of the said period, the petitioners moved an application before the District Magistrate on 1-11-1990 requesting him that some more time may be granted for completion of the aforesaid cinema hall. The District Magistrate did not pass any order on this application, but the petitioners continued to make their construction. On 19/09/1991 the Works Superintendent of Public Works Department, Varanasi submitted a report to the respondent District Magistrate informing him that the picture hall has been made in accordance with the Rules and there is no illegality in making the cinema hall. A photostat copy of this report which is addressed to the District Magistrate, Varanasi is attached as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. The receipt of this report was denied on behalf of the District Magistrate and hence the photostat copy has been filed. The position, therefore, which emerges is that the construction of the cinema is now complete and the petitioners made an application for grant of a licence to them for running the cinema. Their application for grant of the licence is not being considered by the authorities on the ground that under R. 3(3) of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 1951 Rules, the District Magistrate has no power to extend the time for constructing the cinema house beyond that which was already granted to them, and the stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the question for grant of licence can only be considered when the exemption is granted by the State Government which is compoundable under R. 44 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 as amended up-to-date. In effect the contention on behalf of the respondent is that unless the delay in construction of the picture house is compounded under Rule 44 of the Rules, the question for granting licence to the petitioners does not arise.

(2.) Under Rule 3 of 1951 Rules an application has to be made for constructing a building. Under sub-cl. (3) of Rule 3 the licencing authority is empowered to grant permission for construction provided he is satisfied that the site-plans and specifications fully conform to the Rules. The licencing authority has to also state in the said permission the period within which the construction has to be completed. Rule 3 which is relevant for the purposes of decision of this petition is quoted below :-

(3.) We have examined the Rules. Besides sub-cl. (3) of Rule 3 quoted above, there is no other rule which empowers an authority to grant extension of time granted by the Licensing Authority under sub-cl. (3) for constructing the cinema building. The question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether under sub-cl. (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules the Licensing Authority has power to extend the time granted by him. Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act provides as follows :-