GYANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order of the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2734 of 2001 by which the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. By the order under challenge the exhibition of the film KOYA was suspended and the cinema hall was put under lock. The learned single Judge took the view that an order suspending the exhibition of the cinema show comes under S. 6 of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1934 (wrongly noted as Cinematograph Act in the order) and as that order is appealable under S. 7 of that Act but the appellant had not preferred an appeal against the order, he declined to entertain this petition.

(2.) When the appeal was taken up for preliminary hearing on 22-3-2001 counsel for the State fairly stated that provisions of S. 7 of the said Act are not attracted in the instant case but in view of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 6 of the Act which provides information of the order by the State Govt. he took time for instructions. Today when the case was taken up he produced copy of letter No. 863 dated 24-3-2001 of the Additional Secretary, Urban Development informing the District Magistrate, Jahanabad that under S. 8 of the Act the District Magistrate is competent to cancel or suspend the cinema licence and therefore, it is open to him to take necessary action in accordance with law. The aforesaid letter is based on complete misapprehension of the point involved. Section 6 of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 confers power on the State Government or the District Magistrate to suspend the exhibition of any film. Sub-sec. (1) lays down that the State Government, in respect of the whole State or any part thereof, and the District Magistrate in respect of the local area within his jurisdiction, may if it or he is of opinion that any film which is being publicly exhibited is likely to cause breach of the peace, by order, suspend the exhibition of the film, and during such suspension the film shall not be exhibited in the State, part of the State, or local area, as the case may be. As per sub-sec.(2) where such order is issued by the District Magistrate he is required to forward a copy of the order along with the statement of reasons therefor to the State Govt. Thereupon "the State Government may either confirm or annul the order". In view of the provisions of sub-sec.(2) the State Government was required to take a decision to either confirm or annul the impugned order of the District Magistrate.

(3.) However, we do not want to go into this aspect of the matter. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 6 lays down that any order made under sub-sec.(1) shall, unless it is annulled by the State Government under sub-sec. (2), shall remain in force for a period of two months, though the State Government may, if it is of opinion that the order should continue in force, extend the period of suspension by such further period as it thinks fit.