HARISHCHANDRA MAHESHWAR KARANDIKAR Vs. SHANTARAM GHILA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming it to be a public interest litigation. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 is running theatre by name Rajas Chitra Mandir on the house property No. 1202 in Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon without having proper licence to run the theatre. It is also contended that the building of the theatre is not in good condition and as per the norms prescribed for a theatre. The further contention is that running of the theatre in that place is causing nuisance to the neighbourhood because of the heavy traffic jam on the narrow lane and presence of unwanted social elements. The most important allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 has not paid entertainment duty and the authorities are avoiding to recover the entertainment duty from respondent No. 1 and, therefore, it is prayed that the authorities be directed by issuing writ of mandamus to recover entertainment duty from the petitioner by seizing his movable as well as immovable property and also be directed not to issue or renew licence to respondent No. 1 to run theatre on that premises.

(2.) AT the outset, we would like to make it clear that though the petitioner has contended that it is public interest litigation, it is not at all so. Petitioner is the husband of the landlady of property on which theatre premises is there. There are various disputes between the respondent No. 1 and the landlady of the property. Even she had filed a proceeding for possession of the lease property against respondent No. 1 and it appears that in R. C. S. No. 504 of 1976 filed by her, which had reached upto the High Court by way of Second Appeal No. 687 of 1978 happened to be dismissed as per the order passed by this Court on 12th September, 1983. The respondent No. 1 has produced on record a list showing various prosecution and other proceedings launched by the petitioner against respondent No. 1. This all makes it clear that to settle private vengeance, petitioner has filed this petition under the garb of public interest litigation and this very circumstance is sufficient to dismiss the petition.

(3.) THE affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 1 indicates that the respondent No. 1 is running theatre on that place since 1971 after obtaining the licence under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. It may be for sometime his licence might have been cancelled or withheld for one or other reason by the department. Petitioner has nowhere brought on record that actually there was no licence issued to respondent No. 1. Affidavit-in-reply of the Entertainment Duty Officer, Jalgaon filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and 3 does not indicate that the petitioner (sic respondent) was running theatre without licence. The documents produced on record, however, indicate that sometimes licence was withheld or renewal of the licence was withheld by the authorities for due compliance of certain conditions of the licence and other matters. So anyway, it may be said that authorities were taking proper action against respondent No. 1 as and when it was necessary. Petitioner collected some information with respect to the prosecution lodged against the respondent No. 1 and then made out his case. In fact, he had no ground to file any such petition when the authorities were taking appropriate action against respondent No. 1. Petitioner had altogether failed to prove that respondent No. 1 was running theatre without licence.