RAMANA MURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Writ petitions are filed by Sri P. Rama Babu Proprietor Happy Corner, Vij lyawada. Since common questions arc raided in both the writ petitions they are disposed by this Judgmeot. W.P. No. 4269 of 1975 is filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Commissioner and Special Officer, Vijayawada Municipality the respondent dt. 2-8-1975. W.P. No. 2226 of 1976 is filed to quash the order of the same officer dated 7-7-1976. In order to appreciate the questions raised in these two Writ Petitions, it is necessary to state a few facts. The petitioner submitted an application in 1969 to the Vijayawada Municipality for construction of building for running an Amusement Park, but no permission was granted to him by the Municipality. He applied for a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 (hereinafter called the Act) and it was granted by the Chairman of the Vijayawada Municipality on 10-9-1971. Subsequently it was cancelled. Thereupon he filed a Writ Petition in this Court and obtained interim directions. Subsequently at no time the Municipality renewed his license, but the petitioner went on filing writ petitions year after year in this Court and was obtaining interim directions and by virtue of these interim directions he was running the amusement park. When the respondent refused to renew the licence from 13-5-1975 to 12-5-1976 he filed W. P.No. 4269/75. Similarly when the respondent refused to renew the licence from 13-5-1976 to 12-5-1977 he filed W.P. No. 2226 of 1976. Arguments were advanced by Sri Shivshankar in W.P. No. 2226 of 1976 and I propose to deal with it first. The facts in this writ petition are that on 23-4-1976 the petitioner filed an application for renewal, of his licence under the Act from 13-5-1976 for one year. Till 10-5-1976 when no orders were received by him on that application he filed W.P. No. 1618 of 1976 in this Court. It was dismissed on 21-6-1976 directing the respondent to pass orders on that application expechtiously. Thereupon the respondent passed an order on 7-7-1976 refusing to grant the licence to the petitioner. Questioning that order the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 2226 of 1976.

(2.) The respondent has refused to grant the licence primarily on two grounds. First, there was violation of Rule 2 (a) and Rule 30 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Places of Public Resort Rules. Secondly, there is strong objection and there is also an uproar from the public because the amusement park is being used for gambling purposes. To substantiate that it is being used for gambling purposes, he has also given details of the criminal cases launched by the Police Department in regard to the gambling carried on in the amusement park.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner questions the order of the respondent on the following grounds. First no notice was given to the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him under section 6 of the Act to rectify the defects. Without giving any such notice and an opportunity for him to rectify the defects, it is not proper for the respondent to refuse the licence on the ground. Secondly, the petitioner was not given a notice or opportunity with regard to the objections received from the public. In the criminal cases filed against the petitioner and his employees, they were acquitted. Therefore, that cannot be taken as a ground to refuse the licence, It is also submitted that there was a public uproar, is not a relevant consideration for refusing the licence under Sec. 7 of the Act. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in fact, notice was given to the petitioner on 28-6-1975 to rectify the twelve defects mentioned therein but the petitioner has rectifed only five defects pointed out, but did not attend to the other defects till now. Therefore it is submitted that the rejection of the licence on the ground that there was violation of Rule 2 (a) and Rule 30 (5) is valid. It is also submitted that the gambling was going on in the amusemtnt park which is evident from the number of criminal cases filed against the petitioner and others that attended the park, and therefore the amusement park was not being used solely for the purpose for which the licence was granted. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his men were acquitted in apeals in some cases, but their conviction was confirmed in some other cases and even otherwise, it makes no difference while considering the question whether, in fact gambling was being carred on in the amusement park within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act. In order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to refer to section 7 of the Act. It reads as follows :