MESSRS VISHNU TALKIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner firm Messrs. Vishnu Talkies, has constructed a permanent building at a distance of about 3 furlongs from Abu Road railway station for exhibiting cinematograph pictures and possess the necessary licence therefor. THE firm feels aggrieved because a [temporary licence has been granted to Dhannalal (Respondent No. 4) for exhibiting cinematographs at the junior Railway Institute at Abu Road and it has therefore moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the licence and the relevant notification under which the films are being exhibited there. A prayer has also been made for the issue of a mandamus against the State, the Deputy Secretary concerned and the District Magistrate for their cancellation.

(2.) THE facts are mostly not in dispute and we ma) therefore state them at the outset. THE Western Railway has a club known as the Junior Railway Institute, for its subordinate employees. THE Institute has two large rooms and a small cabin, with the necessary compound, which provide accommodation for exhibiting films, but there is admittedly no permanent building of the Institute for that purpose within the meaning of r. 2 (i) (xv) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. THE petitioner's partner Manilal Panchal had taken these premises on lease from the Institute and used to exhibit films there upto 1958. In the meantime, the petitioner set up its present permanent building for cinematograph exhibition and has been running its business in the new premises since 1958 under licences which are renewable from year to year. On April 27-1960 the President of the Institute invited tenders for exhibiting cinematographs in the Institute premises for 1960-61. THE petitioner raised a protest and approached the authorities concerned stating that as there was a permanent cinema at Abu Road, a temporary licence could not be granted under rules 63 and 74 (xii) of the Rules within a radius of five miles. THE State Government thereupon issued letter Ex. 3 on May 2, 1960 to the General Manager Western Railway, i Bombay supporting the petitioner's contention and pointing out that the Rules did not allow the establishment of a temporary or a touring cinema at a place where a permanent cinema was already in existence. A similar communication (Ex. 4) was issued by the District Magistrate to the General Manager on May 7, 1960. However the Government later on issued a notification (Ex. 5) on June 16-1960 permitting Dhannalal to exhibit films at the Institute for a period of three months from that date and directing the Magistrate, who was the licensing authority to issue a temporary licence accordingly. As the notification shows, this was purported to be done under the provisos to rules 63 and 74 (xii) of the Rules. Further, the Government exempted, under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 the exhibitions to be given by Dhannalal from the operation of the provisions of part IV of the Rules. Dhannalal has therefore been exhibiting films since then as further temporary licences have been granted to him from time to time. It has been pointed out that in reply to the petitioner's protest the District Magistrate has expressed in his letter (Ex. 11) dated July 3, 1960, his inability to help the petitioner because he could not withhold the issue of the licence in face of the Government order. THE petitioner claims that its own cinema is adequate to meet the requirements of the population of the town, that the temporary licence has been granted in violation of rules 63 and 74 (xii) of the Rules that the powers given under the law have been exercised in a discriminatory manner that no hearing was given to it before granting the temporary licence in question and that no grounds have been mentioned for granting the licence. THE petitioner has also challenged the vires of sec. 11 of the Act and the provisos to rules 63 and 74 (xii) of the Rules.