B.P. SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, which has been preferred by one of the partners of a Firm ' Heer Palace ' Kanpur, the principal relied claimed is the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the State Government from proceeding further with the action initiated be it Under Section 7 of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the cancellation of a cinematograph licence granted to the said Firm.

(2.) IT appears that Sri K.P. Singh, the Respondent No. 8, was one of the partners of the said Firm. It also appears that initially a joint licence was issued in favour of seven out of eight persons of the said firm. Sri K.P. Singh was one of the said partners. Later on, five persons obtained a joint licence and in this licence Sri K.P. Singa was not included. Sri Singh made a representation to the District Magistrate (the Licensing Authority) for the cancellation of the licence on the ground that his signatures on the application had been forged and he (the District Magistrate) had been defrauded in issuing a licence to five of the partners. On 2nd April, 1984 the Additional District Magistrate (City) put up a note to the district Magistrate that the grievance made by sir K.P. Singh in the aforementioned application for the cancellation of the licence was the subject -matter of a civil suit; the matter was sub -justice and therefore, it was not proper to proceed further in the matter. He also opined that the proceeding should be initiated after the decision of the Civil Court. On the foot of this note the District Magistrate made the following endorsement;

(3.) SRI K.P. Singh made a representation to the State Government setting out there in the relevant facts and particularly the fact that his signatures had been forged upon the application made for the grant of a licence. It appears that the State Government directed the District Magistrate to obtain the version of the Petitioner and others m the form of an affidavit or affidavits. Accordingly, on 9th August, 1984 the District Entertainment Tax Officer, Kanpur sent a communication to the Petitioner and others requesting them to appear on 21st August, 1984 to give their versions. At this stage this petition was preferred in this Court.