MOTILAL PERIWAL Vs. SMTI. EPYAYEN GOHAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the 4th respondent in Civil Rule No. 3940/95 and appellant in Writ Appeal No. 477/95 prays for vacating and/or modifying and/or reviewing the order dated 19-9-95 passed by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Rule and further prays for setting aside the order dated 27-7-95 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia.

(2.) Smt. Epyayen Gohain filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 3940/95) praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or discretion. She owns and possesses a cinema theatre at Margherita in the District of Tinsukia known as Shyam Talkies, Margherita. The licence stands in the name of the writ petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, renewed the said licence from time to time. On or about 22nd day of April, 1957, writ petitioner's father-in- law late Chowken Gohain had applied for a licence for exhibition by means of cinematograph to the then District Magistrate, Lakhimpur District. Licence was granted to him by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur in the name of Shyam Talkies. The father-in-law of the writ petitioner died on 8-8-70 leaving behind writ petitioner's husband Chouney Gohain (since deceased) and his brother Robin Gohain. The authority, thereafter, granted licence to the husband of the writ petitioner. He also died on 14-9-84 leaving behind the writ petitioner with four minor children. As the licence could not be transferred as per Cinematograph Rules, the writ petitioner applied fresh to the authority to grant a licence to her in the name of Shyam Talkies. Considering the petition filed by the writ petitioner, the authority issued fresh licence to her on 8.6.88 as per direction issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Assam, General (A) Branch and since then the licence had been renewed from time to time. The licence was renewed up to 31.3.96. Petitioner in her writ petition states that her husband suddenly died leaving behind her and her four minor children. The petitioner was mentally upset. She could not give proper attention to the affairs of the aforesaid cinema business. Ultimately she had to close down the theatre in the year 1988 and the authority granted certificate (Annexure-D to the writ petition) certifying closure of the cinema theatre. During closure of the theatre, the 4th respondent (present petitioner) with the help of his men entered the cinema theatre and wanted to take possession of the theatre on the plea that in the year 1984 they had entered into an agreement with the writ petitioner allowing them to run the cinema theatre on her behalf. The writ petitioner further stated in her petition that there was no such agreement as during that period she was the licensee in the respect of the said theatre. Thereafter, according to the petitioner though she wanted to open the theatre for her livelihood, she could not do so as she felt insecured and helpless because of conspiracy hatched by the 4th respondent (present petitioner) and his agents. In the month of June, 1988 the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh informing him about the evil design of the 4th respondent (the present petitioner) and requesting him to provide security so that she could open the cinema theatre to earn her livelihood. However, lie authority did not respond to the appeal. The writ petitioner filed yet another appeal on 17.11.1994 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia renewing her prayer. Even then the authority did not respond. Taking advantage of her helpless condition, the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had been putting hindrance so that she could not open the cinema theatre and he could grab the entire property. The writ petitioner further stated in her petition that the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had been making attempt to take over the theatre by paying lump sum amount to the writ petitioner. In spite of her financial difficulties, she did not agree to it. In her petition the writ petitioner also stated that the entire land, building and machineries of the theatre stood in her name and, in fact, she I was the sole proprietress and that the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had no right, title or interest whatsoever in the said theatre. The petitioner was willing to reopen the theatre. However, this was not possible in view of the obstruction put by the 4th respondent (the present petitioner). Situated thus, she filed the above Civil Rule.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam, this Court felt that it was only a law and order problem and, therefore, directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ petition to give protector to the writ petitioner so that she could run the cinema theatre smoothly. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a Writ Appeal (No. 477/95). By order dated 10.11.95 a Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain the appeal, however, observed that proper remedy for the petitioner would be to move this Court for proper relief. Hence the present petition.