LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-186

SUJATA PICTURE PALACE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On July 18, 2017
Sujata Picture Palace Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the resolution (Sankalp) issued by the Government of Jharkhand through Department of Urban Development vide Memo no.-35 dated 06.01.2006, specially Clause-12 of the said resolution by which the licence fee for Cinema house has been enhanced. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioners as per the old Rule in terms of which only Rs.2000/- is required to be deposited as licence fee for renewal of licence. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of letters dated 20.06.2007 and 29.06.2007 issued by respondent no.4 and also for refund of excess licence fee deposited by them for renewal of licence of Cinema houses from time-to-time.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners are engaged in business of exhibiting cinematograph film in the city of Ranchi having licence under the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (corresponding to the Jharkhand Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 2000) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent-State has increased the annual licence fee payable by the Cinema houses under the Act from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.20,000/- having seat capacity of 1000 and above. The petitioners coming under the said slab made an application for renewal of licence on 30.12.2006. However, the respondent no.4 vide letters dated 20.06.2007 and 29.06.2007 informed the petitioners that if the enhanced licence fee is not deposited in terms with clause-12 of resolution dated 06.01.2006 within a period of one week, coercive steps shall be taken for the closure of the Cinema houses and therefore, the petitioners deposited the enhanced licence fee on 12.12.2006. Thus, the petitioners have challenged the clause-12 of resolution dated 06.01.2006 and consequential letters dated 20.06.2007 and 29.06.2007.