MURLIDHAR SHANKARLALJI RATHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution challenging the order of the District Magistrate cancelling the cinema licence and rejecting the application for renewal, and the order of the State Government dismissing the appeal against that order.

(2.) LATE Shankarlal Rathi was granted licence for exhibition of films in the premises known as Vasant Talkies at Durg under section 4 of the m. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952. The premises belong to respondent no. 4 Bajranglal Roongta. Earlier he was using the premises as a godown for storing Tendu leaves. In 1959 the premises were taken on rent by s. L. Rathi for converting into a cinema theatre after making necessary reconstruction. The cinema licence was obtained in 1959. The State government framed M. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1972, for regulating grant of cinema licence. S. L. Rathi held cinema licence No. 22 of 1972 which was renewed from year to year up to 31-3-1981. In February 1981, he applied for renewal of the licence. The respondent No. 4 also made an application to the licensing authority objecting for the renewal saying that his lease has already expired on 31-10-1975 and he is not in favour of giving any consent for renewal of the licence. He also mentioned that after the premises are vacated, he would reconstruct the building and would run a modern aircooled cinema. Necessary permission he has already obtained ' from the Town Planning Department. The District Magistrate got a report from the Deputy Collector dated 8-4-1981 wherein amongst others it was mentioned that two walls and a pillar have been constructed for giving support to the balcony which is giving way but these construction are causing inconvenience to the ladies as their seats are just below the balcony. There is also no proper ventilation. Since the application for renewal was going to take some time, the District Magistrate temporarily renewed the licence up to 31-3-1981 and then provisionally up to 31-3-1982 pending disposal of the application for renewal. The respondent No. 4 filed another application before the District Magistrate pointing out certain defects in the cinema hall. The cinema building was again inspected by the Additional collector and by his report dated 7-8-1981 he submitted that the balcony is in a dangerous condition and it may fall down at any moment and there is no roof in the staircase for going to the balcony. The District Magistrate also got a report dated 17-8-1981 from the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. who pointed out that there were hairline cracks in the building and also in the balcony, tin roofs have got rotted and may be blown out during storm. The District Magistrate, therefore, cancelled the licence and refused renewal by order dated 14-10-1981 holding that the building was unsafe. S. L. Rathi preferred an appeal before the State Government under section 5 of the Act and the order of the District Magistrate was set aside by order dated 5-11-1981 by the appellate authority saying that some of the defects pointed out in the impugned order were not of a serious nature entailing cancellation of the licence but there is no proper enquiry regarding the condition of the cinema building and as to whether the defects pointed out by the executive Engineer could be rectified or not or the building has to be reconstructed. After the case was remanded, the District Magistrate got a fresh report of the Executive Engineer on 27-11-1981 by adverting to the directions of the appellate, authority and he also himself examined the cinema building on 1-12-1981. Both found that there were cracks in the floor of the balcony, there were vertical cracks in the main, walls of the building passing through and through the walls, the roof tins got rotted and some of the tins have come out and they are not properly secured. Two walls and a pillar have been constructed to give support to the balcony without obtaining prior sanction of the licensing authority but this is not sufficient to bear the weight and these constructions are causing inconvenience to the ladies who sit just below the balcony. S. L. Rathi filed an application for examining Chief Architect, Chief Engineer of the M. P. Government, Chief Architect of the Government of India and other witnesses to correctly ascertain the condition of the building. This application was rejected by the District Magistrate saying that the evidence of the Chief Architect is of no use because he was not in a position to state about the condition of the building for which there is already a report of the Executive Engineer. The licence was cancelled and renewal refused on 13-6-1982 as the District Magistrate found the building to be in a dangerous condition.

(3.) S. L. Rathi then preferred another appeal before the State Government. During pendency of the appeal, S. L. Rathi died and his son Murlidhar was substituted in his place by overruling the objection that the appeal has abated. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 14-7-1982 holding that all reasonable opportunity was given to the licensee by the District magistrate and concurring with the finding that the building is unsafe for running the cinema. S. L. Rathi then preferred M. P. No. 903 /82 before this Court which was allowed on 3-3-1983 saying that there is violation of principle of natural justice and without giving opportunity to the licensee to prove his case that the building is in a good condition, his application for renewal could not have been rejected. The case was, therefore, remanded to the District Magistrate to decide the application afresh within a period of 3 months in accordance with law. S. L. Rathi in the meanwhile filed an application for renewal of his licence for the year 1982-83. It may be mentioned that because of the stay S. L. Rathi continued to run the cinema till the application was finally disposed of. After the remand, s. L. Rathi filed an application for examining as many as 8 witnesses in support of his contention. Since he did not pay any process, on the next date of hearing he was directed to specify which particular witnesses he wants to examine and should pay the process. He then paid process for the examination of 3 witnesses only i. e. Chief Architect of the Government of M. P. , B. M. Thakre, Reader, and S. K. Khariya, Lecturer in Engineering College, Raipur. At that stage, S. L. Rathi objected to the participation of his landlord, respondent No. 4, in the proceeding. The objection was overruled. The prayer for appointment of the local commissioner was also rejected. Chief Architect of the Government of M. P. deputed k. M. Bangde, an Architect in his office, to inspect the cinema building and give his opinion as he was not in a position to come himself. Bangade inspected the cinema building on 27-5-1983 in the presence of the parties and submitted his report on 18-5-83 pointing out various defects in the building and that it is in a dangerous condition and it has to be rebuilt. S. L. Rathi also examined Thakre and S. K. Khariya, Reader and Lecturer, both of whom deposed regarding the condition of the' balcony. They admitted that there were cracks but according to them the defects can be rectified. After recording of the evidence, S. L. Rathi raised objection regarding the report and evidence of Bangade and requested that Thakre and Khariya be re-examined to give their opinion about the building also and the Chief Architect should himself be examined and also the Chief architect of the Government of India. The application was rejected. The district Magistrate cancelled the licence and rejected the application for renewal on 6-7-1983. An appeal was preferred before the State Government which has also been dismissed on 2-12-1983, hence this petition.