SATISHCHANDRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Indore, refusing permission to the petitioner to build a cinema theatre under the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act. 1952, (hereinafter called the Act), and also against the order of the State Government on appeal under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) ON 22nd August 1967, the petitioner made an application to the District Magistrate, Indore, for grant of a licence for exhibition of cinema films at 564, Mahtma Gandhi Road, Indore. He had submitted an application earlier also, which was rejected by the District Magistrate by his order dated the 3rd August 1967. In the application it was surged that when his earlier application was rejected no reasons were given for rejection and he was also not given an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner, therefore, submitted in his application that he may be granted a hearing so that if there be any objection he would be able to satisfy the authorities and would also undertake to comply with the conditions that might be imposed. This application was also rejected by the District Magistrate by his order dated the 1st September 1967. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government, and by its order dated the 18th November 1968 the State Government rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, now filed this petition.

(3.) SHRI Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the State, contended that this petition is filed late. According to the learned counsel, the application dated the 22nd August 1967 was only a review application against the order of rejection of the petitioner's earlier application. He contended that the State Government had granted the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel contended that when the petitioner's application was considered the opinion of the High Court was sought because the place where the petitioner wanted to build the theatre was in the vicinity of the High Court building and as the High Court objected to it, the District Magistrate refused the earlier application and, therefore, the subsequent application did not deserve any consideration.