PRARTHANA TALKIES Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. With the consent of parties, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself as the State has already filed a counter affidavit.

(2.) The present application relates to non-renewal of temporary cinema licence of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made an application for grant of permanent licence to exhibit cinematograph films under the Bihar Cinema Regulations Act and the Rules framed thereunder. While the application for permanent grant of licence was pending, the petitioner was granted temporary licence by the respondent-Collector. The licence was valid upto 31.10.2006. By the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4, the same has been refused to be renewed and/or extended inasmuch as no approval had been received from the State Government and the lease of the premises from BISCOMAUN also expired on 31.10.2006. In the writ application, it is stated that BISCOMAUN further renewed the lease and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was entitled to renewal of his temporary licence. In the counter affidavit, no other ground is given except that there being no approval from the State Government, the temporary licence would be renewed on receiving approval from the State Government.

(3.) Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the actions of the respondents are no more sustainable in fact or in law. So far as the lease of the premises is concerned, the same stands renewed. If this was the only objection then the same has become non est. The learned counsel for the State points out that approval of the State Government not being there, the renewal could not be done. I am afraid this is not correct. Once the State Government had approved and a temporary licence issued till the same is not disapproved or approval withdrawn, the same would in natural course of event be subject to renewal if there is no other disability attached. No disability has been pointed out. Merely because State Government is taking its own sweet time to act on the recommendation and grant further approval would not deprive a citizen of his right to carry on his business. That would be arbitrary. It is, accordingly, directed that the Collector should forthwith renew the licence of the petitioner for temporary exhibition of cinematograph films. I may point out that by this action of the Collector not only as the petitioner suffered but the State has also suffered irreparably on account of non-collection of Entertainment Tax. Probably the Collector was oblivious of this fact. The Collector is, accordingly, directed.