TRIBHUWAN KUMAR SARAFF Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRIBHUWAN Kumar Saraff runs a cinema business known as Sri Ram Picture Palace, Riga Road, Sitamarhi. The licence for running a business of cinema was granted by a certificate and registration, memo no. 680 (Si) dated 2 August 1995. The capacity of the cinema hall initially was for 499 seats. Subsequently, the petitioner had applied to the licensing authority for the modification and amendment of the licence so that the seats be permitted to be reduced to 340. On facts there is no issue between the petitioner and the State respondents.

(2.) BUT , the respondents contended that whereas the licensing authority may have permitted a reduction of seats in pursuance of an amended registration under Rule 6 of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Rules, 1984 so made under Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948, the petitioner cannot receive clearance under the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. The contention on behalf of the State respondents is that the petitioner should also have applied under Rule 3 of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Rules, 1984 and only then it will be formally accepted that the petitioner has been granted permission to reduce the seats in the cinema hall and may carry on business with this reduction in seats.

(3.) THE plain question is on where the cinema owner has to go first if he seeks a modification in the licence. The capacity of seats in a cinema hall is one major factor on which the licence is granted. The answer is clearly provided under the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 which confers power on a licensing authority to grant the licence for the purpose of running a cinema. The modification of a licence, thus, is the power of the same authority. Accordingly, the petitioner sought an amendment in the licence. Normally any amendment on the licence granted is a matter within the meaning of Section 4 of Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954. The contention of the respondents is not that this amendment could not take place under Section 4. But, the respondents contend that the petitioner should also have applied for an amendment of the registration under Rule 6 of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Rules, 1984. Rules 6 does not name the authority. The respondents contend that the authorities are named in Rule 3. Rule 3 is about an application for registration for the purpose of taxation.