LALLA BABU KESHRI Vs. D M ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER and rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) THE question whether a licensee under Rule 24-A after exercising option could reduce the number of shows of cinema or not has already been considered and decided by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1994 - Mulchandra Gupta and Ors. v. District Magistrate, Jaunpur and others, in which it is held that sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A implies that, that change in the declaration already made is possible but that is subject to the permission of the District Magistrate. In the present case, no doubt the option exercised earlier for accepting three shows per day but by means of subsequent application, to reduce the number of shows of the petitioners' cinema, is similar to the case which has been decided earlier. Rule 24-A (4) of the aforesaid rules is quoted as under: "rule 24-A (4 ). THE proprietor shall strictly adhere to the declaration under sub-rule (1) and shall obtain permission of District Magis trate, before effecting of change in the number of seats, the ticket rate and the number of shows. " THE said sub-rule (4) clearly makes it clear that even after the option is exercised or the declaration made under sub-rule (1) the petitioner may effect the change in number of seats, the ticket rate and the number of shows after obtaining permission of the District Magistrate. Thus the stand taken by the respondents that once the option exercised is irrevocable, does not stand. Thus even after exercise of option there is right of the proprietor to effect change in number of seats, the ticket rate and the number of shows, this is after obtaining permission of the District Magistrate. This obtaining of permission is not a restriction on the right of the proprietor to reduce number of its shows, seats or rate of his ticket but to enable the authori ties to amend its records to effectuate effective control and collection of taxes. Hence rejection of petitioners' application for reduction of shows from three shows to two shows by means of an order dated 18-7-1994, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, is not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash the order dated 18-7-1994 (Annexure-2 to the petition) passed by the respondents and direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders in the light of observations made above preferably within two weeks from the date the certified copy of this judgment is filed before the concerned authority. THE petitioners will file the certified copy of this judgment within one week from today. Any security deposited by the petitioners in terms of the interim order dated 28-7-1994 for one additional show stand discharged. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with costs.