DEEPAK Vs. HONBLE STATE MINISTER HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 28.01.1999 passed by Respondent No. 1 - Hon'ble Minister in proceedings under Section 8A of Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 1953 Act). By said order, Respondent No. 1 has canceled the license given to father of Petitioner No.2 and directed all concerned to apply under the provisions of Rule 100 and 101 of Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 1966 Rules), for grant of fresh license. The said orders are stayed by this Court. This appeal under Section 8-A of above mentioned 1953 Act in turn challenge the orders of the Collector dated 30.07.1997 and by said orders, the Collector has found that the applicant before it viz. present Respondent No.2 should approach appropriate Civil Court for redressal of its grievance about possession of premises of Cinema Theater viz. Laxmi Theater and in interregnum the situation then prevailing would continue. It, therefore, rejected the application for suspension of Cinema license or for canceling license moved by Respondent No.2 and permitted present petitioner No.2 through legal representatives to enter name of petitioner No.l as its nominee. It is not in dispute that by this order, the Collector has disposed of three applications or objections filed before him by the parties. The first one is dated 14.06.1996 by which Respondent No.2 raised objection to introduction of petitioner No.l as its nominee by the deceased petitioner No.2. The second one is dated 25.06.1996 by which Respondent No.2 sought cancellation of its license as per provisions of Section 6 of 1953 Act and the last one is dated 28.05.1996 by present petitioner No.l to grant license to him.

(2.) The controversy has been considered in the light of earlier litigation between the parties. Civil Suit No. 145 of 1970 was filed by present Respondent No.2 against father of deceased petitioner No.2 for injunction. In that suit the contention was defendant therein viz., K. Appu was appointed as Manager sometime in the year 1946 and initially he was being paid Rs. 150/- per month which was later on raised to Rs.225/- per month. His services were terminated vide order dated 06.06.1970. The prayer was to restrain said K. Appu from entering premises of Laxmi Talkies and from acting or representing himself as Manager of said firm/company. A prayer for temporary injunction was made there and ultimately that dispute came before this Court in Civil Revision Application No.520 of 1971. Vide judgment dated 19.10.1972, this Court found that admittedly K. Appu was continuing to manage the Theater which was in the name of Respondent No.2 company and, therefore, during the pendency of suit, it made certain arrangement. The deceased was directed to maintain accounts of daily collection, to supply statement thereof to plaintiff, plaintiff was given right to enter and to inspect accounts and to watch the working. The collections were directed to be deposited in State Bank of India at Hinganghat. These orders were passed in revision filed by present Respondent No.2. The suit then remained pending and defendant K. Appu expired on 27.11.1982. The suit was then disposed of as abated on 23.04.1984.

(3.) On 17.03.1994, K. Ravi Appu s/o. defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 145 of 1970 filed Writ Petition No.761 of 1994 before this Court against State of Maharashtra and its other officers for quashing of demand of Rs.1,93,300/- on account of land revenue. Petitioner No. 1 therein was Manager of Laxmi Talkies while petitioner No.2 was K. Ravi Appu. Petitioner No.3 was shown as M/s. Rajlakshmi Pictures Pvt. Ltd., Akola, as proprietors of Laxmi Talkies through its Manager Shri. K. Ravi Appu. In the said petition, in para 2, K. Ravi Appu (deceased petitioner No.2 in present matter) has described himself as Manager of Petitioner No.l Laxmi Talkies belonging to petitioner No.3 - Company. On the basis of this material, Shri. Dastane, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Respondent No. 1 has overlooked several material facts which has resulted in failure to exercise jurisdiction. He has invited attention to relevant provisions of 1953 Act as also 1966 Rules and urged that position prevailing after death of Shri. K. Appu on 27.11.1982 till 1996 has not been evaluated at all by Respondent No. 1. He states that license was renewed on six occasions from 1983 till 1989 and Respondent No.2 - Company never raised any objection to the same. The inclusion of name of Ravi K. Appu in license after the death of K. Appu was never challenged and in 1996, the challenge was only to proposed nomination of petitioner No.l - Deepak as his nominee by Ravi K. Appu. Respondent No.3 -Collector has rightly understood the nature and scope of controversy and has applied the mind correctly leaving rest of the dispute for adjudication in Civil Suit.