on these allegations the respondent claimed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued setting aside the said order and directing the appropriate authority under s. 5 of the act to deal with the respondents application in accordance with law.
on receiving this companymunication from appellant number 2 the respondent preferred an appeal to appellant number 1 under s. 5 3 of the act but his appeal was rejected on april 14 1959 and that drove the respondent to the high companyrt of punjab to seek an appropriate relief under its jurisdiction under article 226 of the companystitution.
ci/66 16 while the application made by the respondent was pending co sideration.
on september 30 1957 anumberher memorandum was issued by appellant number 1 addressed to all the district magistrates and the sub divisional officers conveying the decision of appellant number 1 that when an application for grant of permission to companystruct a permanent cinema was referred to the government it should be accompanied by the particulars enumerated in the memorandum.
on december 20 1958 appellant number 2 submitted anumberher report to appellant number 1 saying inter alia that it had been reported by the police that the respondent had been arrested in companynection with save hindi agitation and was discharged on tendering apology and that he did number pay any income tax.
yet anumberher person sultan singh by name made a similar application on august 26 1958.
on march 4 1959 appellant number 2 informed the respondent that his application had been rejected by appellant number as the same did number fulfil the conditions laid down in the memorandum dated september 3 0 1957.
on october 7 1958 the provincial town planner punjab wrote to the executive engineer that the building plans submitted by the respondent had been checked and they appeared to satisfy the rules framed under the act so far as the structural features of the building were companycerned.
it was urged that appellant number i had taken into account the relevant companysiderations prescribed by the instructions issued by it by virtue of its authority under s. 5 2 of the act and had companye to the conclusion that the respondents application companyld number be granted.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated march 30 1961 of the punjab high companyrt in civil appeal writ number 1100 of 1959.
these instructions required that all requests for the grant of permission for opening all new permanent cinemas should be referred to appellant number 1 for orders.
on april 24 1958 appellant number 2 informed the respondent that the site proposed by him for the companystruction of the cinema hall had been approved.
in his petition the respondent alleged that the order passed by appellant number i rejecting his application for a licence under s. 5 was illegal arbitrary capricious oppressive and without jurisdiction.
it appears that appellant number i had decided of grant the licence to sultan singh and that probably is the reason why the application of the respondent was rejected.
then followed a report made by appellant number 2 to appellant number 1 on october 31 1958 mentioning all the relevant facts in regard to the application of the respondent and adding that the report was forwarded to appellant number i for its consideration.
these numberifications were issued by appellant number1 8sup.
in the result the high companyrt has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and has directed the appellants to treat the order made by appellant number as void ineffective invalid and of numberbinding effect.
it appears that on april 24 1957 the government of appellant number 1 the state of punjab had issued instructions in regard to the grant of licences under the relevant provisions of the act.
that is how the question about the companystruction of s. 5 2 falls to be decided in the present appeal.
on may 23 1958 the respondent submitted the building plans.
these plans were forwarded by appellant number 2 to the executive engineer provincial division rohtak for scrutiny.
that is why he was told that his application companyld number be companysidered.
on september 26 1957 the tehsildar made a report that the site was in accordance with the provisions of the act and that the respondent was its owner.
while forwarding the plans to the executive engineer appellant number 2 had stated that the respondent had been allowed to construct a permanent cinema hall at jhajjar and the site plans were being submitted for proper scrutiny and approval at an early date.
in support of his plea the respondent had also alleged that in rejecting his application appellant number 1 had been influenced by extraneous companysiderations which had numberrelevance to the decision of the question as to whether a licence should be granted to him or number.
the appellants disputed the allegations made by the respon dent in his writ petition.
the plea made by the respondent that appellant number i had been influenced by extraneous companysiderations was denied.
meanwhile it appears that one mohan lal had also applied for grant of a licence for companystruction of a cinema hall in june 1958 but he was informed that permission had already been granted to one person and there was numberscope for a second cinema hall.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 763 of 963.
the respondent was required to submit a plan of the building within a month and he was warned number to transfer the ownership of the site without the previous sanction of the licensing authority.
amongst the items thus enumerated were the population of the town where the permanent cinema is proposed to be constructed whether there are any permanent cinemas already in existence in the town and if so how many whether the applicant applicants has have been taking any part in any activity undermining the security of the state and whether the financial position of the applicant applicants is are sound.
in companysequence a writ of mandamus has also been issued requiring the licensing authority to deal with the respondents application in accordance with law.
on february 22 1957 appellant number 2 forwarded the said application to the tehsildar for inspection of the site.
on december 16 1956 he submitted an application to appellant number 2 the subdivisions officer jhajjar for the grant of the licence to companystruct and run a permanent cinema hall on his site.
bishan narain and r. n. sachthey for the appellant.
on october 6 1958 however appellant number 2 addressed a memorandum to the respondent informing him that the site plans prepared by him for the companystruction of a permanent cinema hall would be referred to appellant number 1 for approval according to the latest instructions.
the respondent hari krishan sharma who claims to be the owner of a certain site in the town of jhajjar desired to companystruct a cinema hall at the said place for the purpose of exhibiting cinematography.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c.j.
the suggestion made by the respondent was that appellant number 1 wanted to prefer sultan singh to him for extraneous companysiderations and that rendered the impugned order invalid.
n. andley for the respondent.
