RAMALAXMI CHIMANLAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 6th February, 1984 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Nasik refusing to renew the cinema licence and also the order dated 6th February, 1985 passed by the Minister of State (Home) confirming the order of the Additional District Magistrate.

(2.) This litigation has a chequered history. The petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of deceased Chimanlal Manishankar Rawal, who was carrying on business of M/s. Alankar Talkies at Manmad, Taluka Nandgaon, District Nasik. The late Chimanlal was running the cinema business on the property bearing CTS No.200 of the town of Manmad, belonging to the respondent Nos.7 to 11. There is no dispute that Chimanlal was holding a valid cinema licence issued to him under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 ("Act" for short) read with the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966 ("Rules" for short). Owing to disputes between Chimanlal and the owners of the property i.e. the respondent Nos.7 to 11, Chimanlal had filed Civil Suit No.311 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Nandgaon for a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the suit property and that the owners should not forcibly take possession from him. Chimanlal expired on 27th November, 1983. Thereupon the petitioners preferred an application for the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Chimanlal to be brought on record as plaintiffs. The said application was rejected by the trial Court, but the petitioners' appeal against the said order was allowed and the petitioners and the petitioners were brought on record as plaintiffs in the said suit. The order of the Appeal Court was confirmed by this Court.

(3.) In the meanwhile, since the cinema licence granted to deceased Chimanlal was due to expire in the month of December, 1983, the petitioners made an application under Rule 105 read with Rule 103 of the Rules to the Additional District Magistrate at Nasik, who is the licencing authority under the Act. While the application was pending for consideration, the owners addressed a complaint/letter dated 22nd December, 1983 to the Additional District Magistrate stating that they had terminated the leave and licence granted to late Chimanlal as far back as 1964 and now that Chimanlal had expired, the heirs and legal representatives of Chimanlal had no right to the property wherein the business of Alankar cinema was run and, therefore, the licence should not be renewed. The petitioners submitted a written reply to the owners complainant on 22nd December, 1983. A further reply dated 27th January, 1984 was also filed, which was in the nature of rejoinder. The Additional District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 6th February, 1984 declined to renew the petitioners' licence on the ground that the agreement relating to the cinema premises between the owners and the late Chimanlal had expired in 1977 and no agreement was entered into in respect of further period and that since the owners had not consented to the renewal of the licence in favour of the heirs of late Chimanlal, the licence cannot be renewed.