SAI CHALCHITRA Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply to the question as to whether the petitioner, who is the proprietor of a Cinema Hall known as (Sai Chalchitra) which is situated is Sikandrabad Industrial area Jokhabad, Bulandshahr holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the grant of a licence in favour of respondent No. 3, who is a rival in trade.

(2.) The factual matrix in short compass as set out in the writ petition is that the Cinema Hall, whose present proprietor/partner is Shri Vijay Kumar was owned by U.P. Chal Chitra Nigam which used to own Cinema Halls and exhibit cinematograph films in various districts of the State, was declared a sick unit and closed down some time in the year 1982The aforesaid Cinema building was purchased by the petitioner in auction. The petitioner thereafter applied for grant of a licence to exhibit cinematograph films. On 31-5-1995 the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr granted the licence, and exhibition of cinematograph films started on 23-6-1995 After the closure of the Cinema which was earlier run by U.P. Chal Chitra Nigam, the respondent No. 3 established a Video Cinema Hall in a permanent building. The respondent No. 3 preferred an application for grant of licence under Rule 10(2) of Video Cinemas Rules, 1988 The District Magistrate, Bulandshahr after making certain enquiries granted licence to respondent No. 3 with effect from 13-9-1990 to 31-3-1991 with certain terms and conditions. The respondent No. 3 started exhibiting the films with effect from 24-9-90. The said licence was renewed from time to time and lastly it was renewed up to 31-3-1997 The petitioner, whose licence for exhibiting cinematograph films was granted on 31-5-1995 as stated earlier, applied before the District Magistrate on 28-6-1995, for revocation/cancellation of the licence of respondent No.

(3.) On 19-9-1996 the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr cancelled the licence of respondent No. 3.3. Two appeals were filed before the Divisional Commissioner against the said order. One against the order cancelling the licence and other by refusing to renew the licence which was preferred by respondent No. 3.