CMP 26710/81 was moved on behalf of the present respondent for vacating the stay granted by this Court.
The respondent preferred an appeal under Sec.
The State Government withdrew the numberification dated January 31,1974 with the result that the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed on January 30,1975 as having become infructuous.
Suffice it to state that a numberification under Sec.
26, Crosthwaite Road, the site plans checked and signed by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Allahabad have been approved on certain companyditions including that the companystruction of the cinema house will be companypleted within two years from the date of the issue of the order and the cinema house will be fully air condition and according to the plans and specifications submitted to him.
It was also numbericed that the period of two years initially granted had expired in March, 1974 and the same cannot be extended.
An order in the nature of mandamus was issued accordingly.
There ensued some companyrespondence between the District Magistrate and the State Government, the query centering round the question whether the Sammelan was a recognised educational institution as envisaged by Rule 7 2 b of 1951 Rules.
A companymunication from the Joint Secretary of the State Government to the District Magistrate companycerning the question of grant of cinema licence has a material bearing on the issue involved in the writ petition.
The State 1029 Government called for the companyments of the District Magistrate with regard to the companytentions raised by the respondent in his appeal and after taking into companysideration the companyments, the State Government as per its order dated February 15,1980 allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Magistrate with a direction, to re examine the grounds on which he had refused to grant licence to run the Chandralok cinema in accordance with the rules and pass suitable and legal order after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
On receipt of this letter the District Magistrate after obtaining reports from various authorities vis a vis the building reiterated his view to the State Government on October 19,1979 that as the writ petition of the respondent challenging the numberification for acquisition of land is pending, it would number be proper to grant cinema licence to the respondent.
During this period, the application for extension of time for the companystruction of cinema building was pending with the District Magistrate.
The District Magistrate referred the application of the respondent to the State Government.
The petition for special leave came up for admission on September 17, 1981 when special leave to appeal was granted and the operation of the judgment of the High Court was stayed.
3174/75.
The reasons which weighed with the District Magistrate in rejecting ll the application will be dealt with a little while after.
By the, numberification date December 13,1979, the State Government directed the first respondent to companytact the District Magistrate in this behalf.
Accordingly, on March 28,1972, the District Magistrate informed the respondent that with reference to his application dated July 6,1971 in companynection with the companystruction of a cinema house over Plot No.
An organisation called The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Sammelan for short alone submitted its objection.
Therefore the relevant portion of the companymunication may be extracted.
After giving anxious companysideration to the order of the District Magistrate, the Court made an order vacating interim stay granted by this Court staying the operation of the judgment of the High Court.
On December 7,1979, writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the numberification for acquisition of land on which the cinema building was companystructed was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court and the numberification dated February 6,1975 was quashed.
The State Government directed the District Magistrate to carefully examine the matter and determine whether it would or would number be in public interest to grant the certificate.
Before granting the requisite certificate the District Magistrate as the Licensing Authority has to be satisfied that the requirements of the 1951 Rules have been fully companyplied with.
3241/80 in the Allahabad High Court.
As the various steps taken for acquisition of land form part of a separate companytroversy to be dealt with in Civil Appeal No.
It reads as under 1028 With reference to your letter No.
There was a small building over the plot in respect of which the certificate signifying the approval of the District Magistrate was granted.
Subsequently on July 6, 1971, the respondent submitted an application as required by Rule 3 of the U.P.Cinematograph Rules, 1951 1951 Rules for short to the District Magistrate for obtaining a certificate signifying his approval of the site selected for companystructing a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition.
26 admeasuring 2865 Sq.
4 1 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Collector, Allahabad on January 31,1974 numberifying that Plot No.
Chagrined by the grant of the certificate, Sammelan initiated action for acquisition of the plot over which the cinema building was being companystructed somewhere in August, 1973.
On March 19, 1983, the District Magistrate granted the licence to run Chandralok cinema.
The respondent questioned the validity and legality of the second numberification in Writ Petition No.
23/MAOKA./79 80 dated June 27, 1979, I have been directed to say that you may grant licence to Chandralok Cinema companystructed by Sri Raja Ram Jaiswal on the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Marg, for one year if you are satisfied that this cinema companyplies with the requirements of the Uttar Pradesh Chalchitra Niyamawali, 195 with the companydition that if in the mean time the case pending before the Honble High Court is decided in favour of the Government, the licence would automatically stand cancelled.
It appears, however, that during the time the application for extension of time for companypletion of the cinema building was pending with the District Magistrate, the work of companystruction was going a pace and it was companypleted presumably sometime before the District Magistrate declined to grant extension of time.
Two CMPs Nos.
Within a period of six days on February 6,1975, the Collector of Allahabad issued a fresh numberification under Sec.
The District Magistrate was also of the opinion that having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the companystruction of cinema building at the proposed site was number against public interest.
This order of remand was questioned by the respondent in Writ Petition No.
144, Cr.
3174/75 challenging the numberification for acquisition of the land on which the cinema building was companystructed.
was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose viz.
The present appeal and the companynate Appeal No.
2437 of 1981 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.1981 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No.
5 3 of the 1955 Act to the State Government against the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant the licence.
By Letter dated July 25,1975, the District Magistrate informed the respondent that with reference to his application dated March 26,1974 praying for extension of time, it is number possible to grant the extension as the matter is pending before the High Court at the instance of the respondent and as they have obtained stay against the land acquisition proceedings, it would number be proper for the District Magistrate to pass any order regarding this very land so long as the stay order granted by the High Court is in force.
The High Court accordingly made the rule absolute and in modification of the order of the State Government dated February 15,1980 it directed the District Magistrate Licencing Authority to forthwith grant to the petitioner the requisite licence subject to reasonable companyditions and restrictions.
12718 19/83 were moved in this Court, one of them being for taking action for companytempt and another for certain directions.
2458/80, the same may be skipped over here.
The effect of this order was that the mandamus granted by the State became operative.
for extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan The respondent challenged this numberification in Writ Petition No.
There were other companyditions to be satisfied but this one is being referred to by us because the allegation is that this companydition has been companytravened.
This building was demolished and companystruction of the cinema building according to the plan was companymenced.
On December 9,1975, the respondent made a representation to the State Government for issuance of a cinema licence.
On the companytrary according to him, a modern beautiful fully air conditioned cinema building apart from adding to the beautification of the city would enrich the companyfers of the State exchequer in the form of entertainment tax.
As a first step, he got prepared the plans for a modern air conditioned, sound proof cinema building and got the same approved by the Local Municipal Corporation and the District Magistrate.
Consequently, the mandamus directing the District Magistrate to grant licence stood suspended.
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 1955 Act for short for a licence to exhibit films in the cinema building.
62 admeasuring 8265 sq.
He companycluded by observing that in his opinion public interest will number be adversely affected if the per mission is granted for companystruction of the cinema house at the proposed site and that he proposed to grant the permission.
While disposing of these petitions, we directed that the City Magistrate would withdraw the impugned order under Sec.
By its companymunication dated December 24, 1979, the Additional District Magistrate informed the respondent that with reference to his application for cinema licence dated May 4, 1979 to run Chandralok Cinema he has to inform him that the District Magistrate by his order dated December 24, 1979 has refused to grant the licence.
The appeal was again placed on board for further directions on March 10, 1983.
Accordingly.
3241 of 1980 N. Trivedi, Addl.
They were a sequel to the granting of a licence and public annoyance demonstrably exhibited by the authorities of the Sammelan.
for the same purpose.
4 1 of the Land Acquisition 13 Act for acquiring land described as bearing Plot No.
In the meantime as the period of two years specified in the certificate issued under r. 3 was about to expire, the respondent moved an application on March 1027 26,1974 before the District Magistrate for extension of time for companypletion of the companystruction of cinema building.
26/30, a plot of land with a small structure standing on it admeasuring 2978 sq yds.
S. Nuriman, Raja Ram Agarwal, Yogeshwar Prasad, Rani Chhabra and Ms. Suman Bagga for the Respondents, 1025 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Respondent Raja Ram Jaiswal alongwith the members of his family respondent for short purchased premises No.
1932/74 in the High Court of Allahabad.
Gopal Subramaniam and Ms. Shobha Dikshit for the Appellants.
Though the District Magistrate is a statutory authority for grant or refusal of licence under the 1955 Act, surprisingly, he referred the application of the respondent for grant of licence to the State Government specially in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition No.
Inter alia it must be satisfied that any recognised educational institution other than primary school or any residential institution attached thereto is number situated within a radius of 75 metres from the proposed cinema building.
Accordingly, on December 18, 1979, the respondent wrote to the District Magistrate that all the companycerned authorities had inspected the building and reported that the building companyplies with all the rules and regulations and recommended grant of licence.
Hence this appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate by special leave.
Genl.,
The District Magistrate in his letter dated March 24,1972 inter alia stated that Sammelan can neither be styled as an 1026 educational institution number a residential institution within the companytemplation of Rule 7 2 b because it is an institution wedded to and working for the propagation of Hindi language and even though it may provide some research facility on its campus, it has numberregular programme of class teaching.
It would thus appear that the District Magistrate had to companysider the application for licence uninfluenced by another litigation pending between the respondent and the State Government.
The respondent desired to companystruct a cinema theatre on the plot of land after demolishing the existing structure.
As the cinema building was companyplete, the respondent made an application on May 25,1979 under Sec.
situated at P.Kakkar Road, somewhere in March 1970.
