RAM ABHILASH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order contained in memo No. 1434, dated 8-4-97 (Annexure 10), whereby the Collector of Nalanda, Biharsharif, has rejected the cause shown by the petitioner, and has cancelled his licence under the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules thereunder.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the holder of a licence under Section 3 of the Act to exhibit cinematograph films for the general public in the Naaz cinema hall at Biharsharif. He was served with a show cause notice dated 4-2-97 (Annexure 3), wherein the following three allegations were levelled against him :-(i) Non adults were admitted to shows meant for adults only.(ii) Obscene posters relating to the film were put up by way of advertisement.(iii) The lavatory etc. were in unhygienic condition.2.1. By the same order dated 4-2-97, the petitioner's licence was suspended with immediate effect and he was prohibited from holding cinema shows. The petitioner had shown cause on 7-3-97 (Annexure 4), whereby he denied the allegations.

(3.) The licensing authority had earlier caused a surprise inspection of the premises in question on 20-3-97 (Annexure 6), which states as follows :-(a) The surprise inspection was done on 8-2-97, the date on which the petitioner had allegedly admitted non adults to the cinema show for adults in the absence of the owner or the manager of the Naaz cinema hall.(b) 15-20% of the viewers were non-adults. The report, therefore, recommended that the petitioner should be directed not to repeat it in future.(c) The urinal had been improved.Taking an over-all view of the situation, the inspection report recommended to the licensing authority that the order of suspension may be lifted and he may be allowed to resume the shows with a warning. In the meanwhile the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court against that part of the aforesaid order dated 4-2-97 (Annexure 3), whereby the suspension order was imposed, which was registered as CWJC No. 2746 of 1997. The same was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 31-3-97, with the observation that in a case of this nature, instead of cancelling or suspending the licence, the authorities must see to it that the rules are enforced. The respondent authorities were directed to hold an inspection forthwith with a view to revoke the order of suspension. The authorities had already held the inspection, as stated above, on 20-3-97 (Annexure 6), and in view of that report, the licensing authority passed orders on 4-4-97 lifting the suspension order.