KAMAL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in WP (T) No. 5220 of 2002 on the file of this Court are the appellants. They claim to be the owners of a building known as Ratan Talkies. According to them, they had a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films. They let out the premises to a firm known as S.N. Ganguly & Company. According to them S.N. Ganguly & Company had the liability under the Bihar Entertainments Tax Act, 1948, to pay the entertainment -tax in respect of the films exhibited in Ratan Talkies. The appellants filed a suit for eviction against S.N. Ganguly & Company as T.S. No.

(2.) /95 on the plea that the partnership had defaulted in payment of rent and had also breached the terms of the tenancy. It appears that the appellants had also objected to the renewal or grant of any license under the Cinema Regulations Act to S.N. Ganguly & Company. It is also seen that S. N. Ganguly & Company defaulted in payment of entertainment -tax due under the Entertainments Tax Act. Taking the position that S.N. Ganguly & Company were exhibiting films unauthorisedly in Ratan Talkies, the concerned Magistrate sealed the Projector room and seized the Machineries and Equipments belonging to S.N. Ganguly & Company. This was done on 6.5.1995. On 2.9.2000, a compromise petition was filed by the appellants on the one hand and S.N. Ganguly & Company on the other, in T.S. No. 2/95. As per the compromise, S.N. Ganguly & Company agreed to vacate the Ratan Talkies within two months and also agreed to suffer a decree for arrears of rent passed against them. The Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, mechanically accepted the compromise and on 6.9.2000, passed a decree in terms of the compromise. We say mechanically because it does not appear that the Subordinate Judge considered the question of liabilities of the parties under the Cinema Regulations Act, the Cinematograph Act and the Bihar Entertainments Tax Act and see whether any provision had been made for payment of the dues. Whatever it be, the suit for eviction ended in a compromise decree for eviction. The compromise did provide that the parties together were to move the concerned Magistrate for getting the seizure lifted and/or to get the sealed Projector Room re -opened. S.N. Ganguly & Company is alleged to have not acted as per the terms of the compromise. But we find that the firm did file W.P. (C) No. 1400 of 2003, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the District Cinema Magistrate, Ranchi, to lift the attachment or to release the seized articles. The appellants, the claimed owners of the Ratan Talkies are not seen to be parties to the said writ petition. The authorities resisted the writ petition. They, inter alia, pleaded that huge amounts were due by way of entertainment tax as against the owners and the licensee of the Cinema Talkies. The learned Judge declined to grant any relief in the light of the allegations in the counter -affidavit and also having regard to the fact that S.N. Ganguly & Company was neither the owner, nor the licensee of the Cinema Hall. There is no case for S.N. Ganguly & Company represented by the respondents No. 8 and 9 before us, that any appeal has been filed against this judgment. 2 It is at this stage that the appellants approached this Court with the writ petition essentially seeking the opening up of the projection room and the lifting the seizure or attachment. S.N. Ganguly & Company, as noticed, was also impleaded. Whereas the appellants pleaded that S.N. Ganguly & Company was liable for any taxes that may be due under the Entertainments Tax Act, S. N. Ganguly & Company disclaimed any liability. It is seen that the appellants had also moved the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi with a petition to direct the Cinema Magistrate to remove the lock from the projection room of Ratan Talkies and to remove the articles therefrom forthwith and that application had not been disposed of.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after referring briefly to the controversies projected, took the view that disputed questions of fact were involved and it could not be decided as to who was liable to pay the dues which the State Government was entitled to collect. The learned Single Judge, therefore, decided that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised and that no specific direction need be given. Without prejudice to the rights of the aggrieved person to move a Court of competent jurisdiction, the writ petition was dismissed.