BABAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The most redeeming feature of the present case is that on behalf of the State it's counsel Mr. A. K. Singh, S. C. III made a candid statement that he cannot support the impugned order dated 17/05/2001 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). Followed by this was a statement that regard being had to the legalities of the matter the proposition cannot be defended that the Minister could have interfered in this matter.

(2.) The facts are these : The petitioner appellant purchased the property, land and a building and a running business of a cinema. The property at which the business of cinema is being carried out is, known as Prabhat Talkies. It is khata No. 196, plot No. 16 area 0.4 decimals, khata No. 198, plot No. 17. area 0.7 decimal, plot No. 18, area 0.9 decimal situated at Jehanabad. The petitioner appellant along with others purchased the entire interest in the land and the building by a sale-deed executed in his favour. The sale was questioned in title suit No. 104 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jehanabad by one Pramila Sinha and Mathura Prasad, respondents No. 9 and 10 in the writ petition. An alternate relief was also sought in the plaint to the effect, that the petitioner be directed to execute a lease in their favour with regard to the premises in question for a period of 25 years. Impliedly this relief had been sought to continue the business of running the cinema. The suit failed and was dismissed by the Sub-Judge, Jehanabad by order dated 13/07/1993. Any extension of lease which had been granted in terms of a decree passed in title suit No. 78 of 1998 also expired on 31/12/1991. This, then left the contesting respondents Messers Pramila Sinha and Mathura Prasad without any title as also without any lease. Consequently, the business of cinema was virtually being run without a valid licence and none has been granted under the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 and the rules framed under this Act.

(3.) An appeal has been filed against the judgment of the trial Court (First Appeal No. 608/93) and this appeal is pending. But, this aspect is not relevant.