RAJIV RAJAN SHORAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN the High Court by an interim order sanctify the carrying on of an activity for which a licence is a legal prerequisite during the pendency of an application for such licence, is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench at the threshold stage of admission.

(2.) THE issue aforesaid arises in a somewhat unusual context. It is common ground that earlier there had been a spate of writ petitions within this jurisdiction on behalf of persons seeking to operate video cassette records without a licence for the entertainment of their customers in hotels, restaurants and other public places. However, by virtue of the Division Bench judgment in Hotel Mangalam V/s. State of Bihar, 1985 Pat LJR 326, it is now settled law that the exhibition of films through a video cassette recorder on a television set comes within the expression "cinematograph" under S. 2(b) of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and is consequently subject to the licensing provisions of Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the said Act. Subsequently, an ancillary question was sought to be raised whether such an exhibition can be permitted without a licence in a club. This was also answered in virtually identical terms by the Division Bench in C.WJ.C. 4958/1984 (H. R. Club Fatwah V/s. State of Bihar) disposed of on 12 -11 -84 : (reported in AIR 1986 Pat 182). In the wake of the aforesaid judgments a large number of pending writ petitions, on this point, in this High Court, both at Patna and at the Ranchi Bench, were consequently dismissed. However, in C.W.J.C. No. 767 of 1985(R) (Jai Prakash Khalanka V/s. State of Bihar), a Division Bench, while actually dismissing and disposing of the writ petition, on the 18th July, 1985, proceeded to observe as under : "It does not stand to reason as to why the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, respondent 1 has not granted licence to the petitioner if all the formalities have already been complied by him in that regard for the issuance of valid licence. Respondent 1 is, therefore, directed to grant the licence to the petitioner if all the formalities already adhered to within a period of one month from today. In the meantime the respondents as well as the other competent authorities shall not obstruct the petitioner from exhibiting the Video shows through Video for which licence has already been applied for." Once the aforesaid interim direction was made it seems that the same has been routinely followed by the other Benches at Ranchi. The end result by virtue of these interim orders is that the exhibition of video cassette recorders is being indiscriminately allowed to continue in public places despite the admitted fact that a licence therefor is a prerequisite under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and no such licence has yet been granted by the authorities.

(3.) EMBOLDENED by the aforesaid situation the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the restaurant styled as "M/s. Raju Coffee House". The primer relief sought herein is that the respondents -State be injuncted from interfering with the operation of the V.C.R. in the petitioners restaurant till the application purported to have been filed for the grant of a licence therefor is disposed of. This case originally came up before a Division Bench presided over by my learned brothers S. Ali Ahmad, J. and Abhiram Singh, J. and before them the learned counsel for the petitioners virtually laid claim to a vested right to get an interim order for continuing to operate the V. C. R. in the petitioners restaurant in spite of the admitted position that no licence therefor has as yet been granted. This was rested primarily on the basis of somewhat similar directions made in some of the earlier writ petitions, referred to above. Unable to agree with any such claim to such right the Bench observed as follows: - "We feel some difficulty in accepting the prayer of the petitioner. To operate a Video Cassette Recorder without a licence is an offence under the Act and if we say that the petitioner should continue Video show on commercial basis without a licence, then the offence will be committed under the cover of the order passed by this Court. This is something which we cannot conceive. But in large number of cases such orders have been passed. We, therefore, consider it desirable that this matter, which is of public importance, should be considered by a larger Bench." This is how the matter is now before us. It is, perhaps, apt to notice at the outset that because of the nature of the claim made on behalf of the writ petitioner though the matter is technically one of admission and the grant of interim relief but nevertheless we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length as also Mr. Chattopadhaya for the respondent -State in reply.