MANOJ CHITRA MANDIR ANPARA SONEBHADRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11-11-1992, Annexure 10 to the writ petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner for giving him the benefit of grant-in-aid under the terms of the Government Order issued on 21-7-86, An nexure 1 to the petition, exempting him to pay the entertainment tax fully and partial ly. The entitlement for the benefits of the said scheme is primarily based merely on two dates; the date on which the applica tion was made from constructing the per manent building of cinema hall as required under the provisions of Rule 3 of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules 1951, hereinafter called the Rules, and the date on which the licence was granted for cinematograph ex hibition. In the instant case the petitioner applied under the said Rules for grant of certificate for construction of the building on 12-5-82. The said certificate was granted by the licencing authority under the said Rules on 20-10-82. Petitioner could not complete the construction within the period stipulated in the certifi cate and hence filed an application dated 9th August, 1983 for extension of time to complete the construction of the cinema hall and the respondents vide order dated 13th October, 1983 Annexure 3 to the writ petition, extended the said period. Petitioner was granted licence for cinematograph exhibition on 11 -6-85.

(2.) THE aforesaid Government order dated 21-7-86 provides that the benefit of the grant-in-aid Scheme shall be given only to those licensees, who had filed the application for construction en 1-1- 83 or subsequent thereto and to whom the licen ces for exhibition of pictures were issued between 1-1-84 and 31-42-85. Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel for trie petitioner has earlier on 26. 2. 96 submitted that the application dated 9. 8. 83 for exten sion of time for completing the construc tion of the permanent building has to be treated as an application filed under the Rule 3 (1) of the said Rules and the petitioner becomes entitled for the benefit of grant-in-aid Scheme under the said Government Order dated 21. 7. 86. In sup port of this argument reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in writ petition No. 3131 of 1986 "smt. Meera Srivastava v. State, of UP, and others, " contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition, wherein the Division Bench has observed as under: "an extension granted to save lapse of any permission or sanction tantamount to grant of fresh sanction or permission. THE extension of sanction to a plan for construction of cinema on 25th April, 1983 would be deemed to grant of fresh sanction which was to remain valid for the period it was extended. In the instant case it would be deemed that site plan was approved on that date viz. 1-11-1983 it would like renewal of fresh licence to carry out certain work, trade, profession, business etc. In this view the exten sion to sanction plan after 1-1-83 to the public cinema meant moving of application and grant of sanction after 1-1-83. "

(3.) AFTER hearing this case on 26-2-96 it was listed for further hearing only on the issue of unjust enrichment. Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on several occasions, i. e. on 14-3-9*, 5-4-96 and 8-4-96. When this case was called for hearing today, a prayer was made for further adjournment which we declined and proceeded with the case with the help of learned standing- counsel as Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel did not ap pear.