Cine and Supply Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. vs SK Mezammal Islam

M.H.S. Ansari, J.—The three appeals have been heard analogously as they raise similar questions pertaining to the grant of a licence in respect of a cinema hall known as Srirupa Cinema.

M.A.T. No. 3995 of 1999 is directed against an order dated October 4, 1999, passed in W.P. No. 17723 (W) of 1999.

M.A.T. No. 4287 of 1999 is directed against the orders passed in W.P. No. 20257 (W) of 1999 dated November 25, 1999, December 14, 1999 and December 17, 1999. However, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has confined the said appeal, being M.A.T. No. 4287 of 1999 to the extent of the order dated December 17, 1999.

M.A.T. No. 4288 of 1999 is directed against the orders dated December 14, 1999 and December 17, 1999, passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 21804 (W) of 1999. However, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has confined the said appeal to the order dated December 14, 1999.

In so far as the appeal, being M.A.T. No. 3995 of 1999 is concerned, the same as noticed above, is directed against an order dated October 14, 1999, whereby directions were issued upon the Respondent authority to treat the writ petition as representation of the writ Petitioner and to consider the same in accordance with law upon giving a hearing to the writ Petitioner and the private Respondents. It must be stated here that pursuant to the said direction, the Respondent authority has passed an order dated November 25, 1999, relegating the parties to a suit for adjudication of the disputes. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order as the same has already been worked out and the Appellant is not prejudiced thereby. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal, being M.A.T. No. 3995 of 1999 deserves to be dismissed as infructuous.

In so far as the other two appeals are concerned, the order impugned is dated December 14, 1999, whereby the interim order which was granted on November 25, 1999, for maintaining status quo with regard to the cinema hall in question was directed to continue till December 17, 1999, and thereafter, by an order dated December 17, 1999, a direction was issued to the Respondent authority to give a heari.ng to Pulak Kumar Mondal, whose objection in the matter was pending before the District Magistrate in regard to Srirupa Cinema Hall and upon giving hearing to the said Pulak Kumar Mondal, the matter was directed to be disposed of within the time framed therein.

It is the contention of the Appellant that the said Pulak Kumar Mondal has no right to be heard in the matter with regard to grant of licence which has been issued in favour of Ram Sankar Das, as an agent of the company, that is, M/s. Cine and Supply Corporation Private Limited, which is the owner of the cinema hall in question. It is the further contention of the Appellant that the said Pulak Kumar Mondal ceased to be a Director of the said company with effect from September 2, 1996, on the ground of his absence in three consecutive meetings under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is the further case of the Appellant that Ram Sankar Das has been made a Director of the company by a resolution dated October 9, 1999, and, therefore, the application filed for grant of licence and the subsequent grant of licence in favour of the said Ram Sankar Das is valid in law and the said Pulak Kumar Mondal can have no right or claim to the grant of licence, and therefore, the order impugned in the appeal whereby direction has been issued to afford an opportunity of hearing the said Pulak Kumar Mondal is illegal.

It must be stated here that the said Ram Sankar Das originally was running the cinema as a licensee under a licence and subsequently, on account of certain alleged labour disputes, the cinema hall declared a lock out in or about November 1995. Thereafter, it is the case of the Appellant that the said Ram Sankar Das has acquired the shares of the said company and applied for grant of licence which has also been granted to him to run the cinema hall.

Whereas, the case of Pulak Kumar Mondal is that he is a Director of the company and that the said Ram Sankar Das has no manner of right to run the cinema or to the grant of licence in his favour. An objection was raised by Pulak Kumar Mondal, it is contended even before the grant of licence in favour of Ram Sankar Das, and until the said objection was considered, the grant of licence in favour of Ram Sankar Das was not valid. The impugned order is thus sought to be sustained on the ground that the objections raised by Pulak Kumar Mondal require to be adjudicated upon before any valid licence can be said to be issued in favour of Ram Sankar Das.

Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the question of violation of the principles of natural justice in the case does hot arise and/therefore, the question of affording an opportunity of hearing Pulak Kumar Mohdalis not warranted as Pulak Kumar Mondal has ceased to be a Director of the company in question and is not entitled to the grant of licence or for consideration of his objection or any application that may have been made by him in that behalf. Further case of Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, learned Counsel is that these objections raised by Pulak Kumar Mondal cannot be considered either in the writ proceedings or by the Respondent authority, in as much as, the said Pulak kumar Mondal has raised the very contentions before the Company Law Board with regard to induction of Ram Sankar Das as Director of the Company and with regard to allotment of shares made in his favour.

Mr. Moloy Kumar Bose, learned senior counsel appearing for Pulak Kumar Mondal sought to counter said submissions by submitting that the question pending before the Company Law Board is with regard to the management and affairs of the company in question, whereas the contentions raised in the writ petition filed by Pulak Kumar Mondal are with respect to the grant of licence in favour of Ram Sankar Das, who, it is alleged, has no manner of right to the grant of the same.

Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon certain judgments in support of his submissions. However, for the view we have taken in the matter, we are not inclined to consider the various contentions urged by the learned Counsel in details, as we are of the opinion that by the order dated October 4, 1999, passed in W.P. No. 17723 (W) of 1999, the learned Judge had directed the Respondent authorities to consider the representation of the writ Petitioner therein that is Sk. Mezammol Islam who claimed that he was the agreement holder with regard to the cinema had in question and his case was also supported by Pulak Kumar Mondal. The said writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 17723 (W) of 1999 had been afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Respondents authorities pursuant to the said order of the learned single Judge and the parties had been relegated to adjudicate their disputes before a civil Court. By the impugned order dated December 17, 1999, the question of giving hearing to Pulak Kumar Mondal is in terms review of the earlier order dated October 4, 1999. We are, therefore, of the view that the said order dated December 17, 1999, could not have been passed. We accordingly set aside the order dated December 17, 1999, to the extent directions have been issued for giving a hearing to Pulak Kumar Mondal.

The question the remains for consideration, however, is whether applications can be made by or on behalf of a company by the Directors as agents of the company for grant of licence. This has to be considered. In the main writ petition itself in the light of the regulations and the rules framed thereunder. Under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954, cinematograph exhibitions can be made only upon a licence being granted by the licensing authority. Under the Rules framed thereunder in definition Clause 2(iv) ''person'' has been defined to mean any adult male or female individual and includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. In the light of the statutory provisions, the question for decision would be as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, a licence could have been applied for or could be granted to a Director of the company and not to the Company itself. We refrain from going into this controversy for the reason that what have been assailed before us are only interlocutory orders and, therefore, the two appeals, being M.A.T. Nos. 4287 of 1999 and 4288 of 1999 are allowed in part with the observations as above.

Before parting with the matter, it must also be stated that the Appellant by a supplementary affidavit has sought to contend that the licensing authority by his order dated November 25, 1999, while relegating the parties to civil suit has also directed the continuation of the status quo order. Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya has sought to contend that the said order of status quo granted by the licensing authority is illegal and not tenable. We may only observe that the said order of the licensing authority has not been assailed and, therefore, in these writ proceedings, we are not inclined to consider the said contention and leave it open for the Appellant to file such appropriate proceedings as he may be advised questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the licensing authority.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent xerox certified copy be supplied on priority basis.

Satyabrata Sinha, J.

I agree.

Appeal disposed of.