OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sameer Kalia for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner while assailing the order dated 8.1.2016 has also assailed validity of the condition contained in sub-para (4) of Para 3 of the government order dated 20.5.2011 according to which a restriction was imposed upon the petitioner not to let out or use his commercial premises unless the cinemas permitted to be run in the said complex become operative. Challenge to the aforementioned condition is raised on the ground that the same is illegal and arbitrary for the reason that the power to impose such a said condition is not envisaged under the statutory provisions regulating the business of Cinemas under the U.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955, as such, the same is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has given up the challenge to the aforesaid condition of the government order dated 20.5.2011 and has rather prayed that the petitioner may not be prevented to use his property for the business purpose as he does not wish to continue with the business of Cinemas any more, therefore, the binding effect of the impugned condition applicable to the running of Cinema may not be attracted and the petitioner may be free to use his premises for any purpose other than running cinema hall. The petitioner was previously running a cinema hall in the premises in question which business is lying closed since 20.10.2001. It is averred by the petitioner that there is no outstanding liability in so far as the cinema business run by the petitioner up to the aforesaid date is concerned. In order to augment his income, the petitioner proposed to upgrade the cinema business for which a project was submitted before the authorities and the same was sanctioned and thereafter the construction was raised. The petitioner proposed to let out other portions of his commercial premises but the same on being noticed resulted into the issuance of order dated 8.1.2016 whereby the petitioner, until the start of cinema business, was restrained to enter into any other activities in the premises which was expanded by the petitioner into a complex reserving a space for cinema hall. This restriction was imposed in view of the government order dated 20.5.2011 read with other government orders applicable in this behalf.