ROOPSINGH Vs. LICENCING AUTHORITY DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner pray for issuance of appropriate writ directing respondents 1 and 3 to renew the cinema licence in their favour for operating Mahabir Talkies, Tikamgarh.

(2.) The present petitioners, on 28-2-1984, applied to the District Magistrate, Tikamgarh for renewal of the cinema licence of Mahabir Talkies for the year 1984-85. The respondent 2 also filed an application on 6-1-1984 before the same authority contending that he has a share in the said talkies and, therefore, the licence in the name of the petitioners be not renewed. The respondent 2 further contended that he is also owner of Mahabir Talkies. In the light of these rival contentions, the District Magistrate, after hearing both the parties passed an order on 23-8-1984 holding that there was sufficient proof that respondent 2 has half share in Mahabir Talkies. The District Magistrate further held that petitioner 1 should get his right and ownership of Mahabir Talkies declared within a month from the date of the order and then after a month the question of renewal shall be considered. Aggrieved by this order of the District Magistrate, Tikamgarh, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Government. The State Government dismissed the appeal on 18-6-1985. In this petition, Annexure-R-1 is the order passed by the District Magistrate and Annexure-R-II is the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the State Government, and these two are under challenge.

(3.) According to the petitioners, they are the sole owners of Mahabir Talkies because it was purchased by them by a registered sale-deed dt. 29-1-1981 from one Phindilal. On 10-6-1961 a partnership was created with regard to this cinema business between petitioner 1 and one Pooran Singh and the licence was issued in the name of petitioner 1 continuously till the year 1973. In June 1973, this partnership came to an end. The licence of Mahabir Talkies was renewed continuously in the name of petitioner 1. Subsequently the petitioner 2 entered into the partnership of the cinema business with respondent 1, the licence was renewed then continuously till the year 1983. The respondent 2 Jasbir Singh who claims himself to have succeeded to the deceased partner of this cinema business after his death created a dispute with regard to the ownership of the cinema business. This dispute was heard by the District Magistrate, Tikamgarh and he passed an order Annexure-R-1 under the Madhya Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Act and Rules of 1972. In Annexure-R-1 the District Magistrate did not reject the renewal application of petitioner 1 but kept it pending for a month. In appeal, vide Annexure-R-II, the State Government was of the view that there was prima facie a dispute between the parties with regard to the ownership of the cinema premises and the District Magistrate was correct in not renewing the same, because such dispute can only be adjudicated in a civil suit and not in the proceedings of renewal. The petitioners claim that both the orders impugned are illegal and bad in law. They further contended that the State Government failed to consider the impact and effect of R.102 of the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1972. The petitioners also contended that the direction to settle the dispute in the forum of Civil Court was wholly unwarranted.