SHAMBHOO NATH AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- Shambhoo Nath Agarwal, filed above noted writ petition under Art. 226, Constitution of India, initially praying for a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate/Licencing Authority under U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 Mirzapur to permit the petitioner to exhibit feature films in the light of direction given by the Apex Court in its judgment and order dated 19th July, 2004 (Annexure 23 to the petition) and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 / State of U.P. to recover damages (caused to him by) from Sh. Sabha Raj Singh the then District Magistrate) and Sri Amrit Pal Singh (the then Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax, Mirazpur)/respondents 2 and 3 respectively for dilatory tactices causing loss illegally in not permitting the petitioner to exhibit feature films.

(2.) This petition was presented on August 9, 2004. the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate on that day i.e. August 9, 2000 itself happened to pass order rejecting petitioner's application for renewal of licence for exhibiting feature films under U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (the "Rules"), framed under the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (as amended from time to time). The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition and prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash aforesaid order dated August 9, 2004 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure "33" to the petition).

(3.) Prakash Chandra and Vikash Chandra sons of Late Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, impleaded as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (by amendment) have filed counter-affidavits, while respondents 1, 2 and 3 have filed separate counter- affidavits.