RANCHHORLALJI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONERNORTHERN DIVISION AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the appellate order dated the 2nd September, 1958 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur, maintaining the order of the District Magistrate of Sundargarh declining to renew the temporary license granted to the petitioner to exhibit cinema films in a temporary building at Rajgangpur.

(2.) Rajgangpur was formerly a village in Sundargarh district but it has gradually grown into a fairly big town consequent on the establishment of a Cement factory and other industrial concerns there. On the 1st January, 1951, the petitioner was first given a temporary license to exhibit cinema films at Rajgangpur. This license was renewed from time to time after the expiry of the usual period of three months and the last period of renewal expired on 31-12 57. The building where the cinema films were exhibited was a temporary structure but it appears that the petitioner was gradually trying to improve the condition of the same and in 1956 he replaced the wooden trusses with iron trusses erected on brick pillars. But the roof of the building still continued to be of a temporary character.

(3.) On the 17th September, 1957, the District Magistrate of Sundargarh granted the opposite party No. 4, Anagi Manjari Devi, a permanent license to exhibit cinema films in Rajgangpur in a building not far away from that of the petitioner. Consequently, when the petitioner applied in due course, for the renewal of his temporary license after its expiry on the 31st December 1957 the District Magistrate rejected the same saying that as there was formerly no permanent cinema house at Rajgangpur, the petitioner had been allowed to exhibit cinema films in a temporary structure, but as a permanent building had since been constructed and a permanent licence granted to the opposite party No. 4 there was no necessity of renewing his temporary license. On appeal, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur, while upholding the order of the District Magistrate, pointed out that after a personal inspection of the locality he was satisfied that the place where the petitioner had constructed his temporary structure was "eminently unsuitable for a cinema house of any sort" but added that he would have no objection if the petitioner was granted a temporary license to exhibit cinema films at some other place in the town.