Harbans Lal Sachdeva through L.Rs. and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dt. 28.7.2005 (Annexure P/1), by which the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and also against the order dt. 16.12.2003 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Licensing Authority. By the order dt. 16.12.2003 (Annexure P/11), the Licensing Authority granted licence to exhibit cinema at Roxy Talkies in favour of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Mr. B.R. Sareen in their joint names. Mr. K.D. Marfatiya was owner of a property named as ''Roxy Talkies'' situate at Lashkar area, Gwalior. He leased out the aforesaid property in favour of Mr. B.B. Sareen, who later on obtained licence to run cinema. On 16.2.1958 Mr. B.B. Sareen constituted a Partnership Firm namely M/s. Agra Films Exhibitors with partnership of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva. On 5.1.1970 another partnership deed was executed, in which sons of Mr. B.B. Sareen and Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva, namely Mr. B.R. Sareen and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva were inducted as new partners. After death of Mr. K.D. Marfatiya, his son Mr. Bahadur K. Marfatiya and wife Smt. Gulbanu Marfatiya executed a new lease deed.

Mr. B.B. Sareen died on 15.2.1975. Up to his death the licence of cinema was in his name. After his death, Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva submitted an application on 28.7.1975 for grant of licence in his name and son of Mr. B.B. Sareen, namely Mr. B.R. Sareen submitted another application for grant of licence. Vide order dt. 15.5.1975 the Collector granted licence in favour of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed and it was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by Mr. B.R. Sareen before the High Court. It was registered as M.P. No. 104/1976.

A Civil Suit for dissolution of Firm was also instituted and the court appointed Mr. Layak Chand Siyal as Receiver and on an appeal, in place of Mr. Layak Chand Siyal, Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva was appointed as Receiver. High Court in M.P. No. 104/76 set aside the order passed by the Licensing Authority - Collector and remanded the case back to reconsider the same. Thereafter, the Licensing Authority vide order dt. 29.11.1979 ordered closure of Cinema. Against the order dt. 28.9.1979 passed in M.P. No. 104/1976, an SLP No. 2654/1980 was filed before Hon''ble Supreme Court. Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 23.8.1991 directed the Licensing Authority to reconsider the application with certain observations and Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva was permitted to exhibit cinema. Additional District Judge vide judgment dt. 1.1.1998 cancelled the receivership of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva. Against the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was filed.

On 1.7.1999 Licensing Authority in pursuance to the order passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court granted a licence in favour of the firm, in which Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva were partners. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by Mr. B.R. Sareen before the State Govt., in which the matter was remanded. Against the aforesaid order, again a writ petition was filed before the High Court. It was registered as W.P. No. 1197/2000 and the High Court vide order dt. 21.7.2000 directed to issue licence in favour of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva and remanded the matter back. Thereafter, the Collector vide order dt. 10.8.2000 granted licence in favour of Baba Exhibitors through partners Shri Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Shri Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva. Against the aforesaid order, Mr. B.R. Sareen filed an appeal, that was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, again a writ petition being W.P. No. 54/2002 was filed and the High Court vide order dt. 30.4.2003 cancelled the orders passed by the appellate authority and the Collector and remanded the matter back again to decide the application afresh in accordance with observations made by the High Court and Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Licensing Authority granted licence in favour of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Mr. B.R. Sareen in their joint names on the ground that after the death of Mr. B.B. Sareen, his son Mr. B.R. Sareen had an interest on the basis of lease deed. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed, that has been dismissed, then this writ petition has been filed.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition is that the authorities have committed an error of law in granting licence in the joint name of Mr. B.R. Sareen because he has no lis in the property.

During pendency of the petition, an application has been filed by the State for dismissing the writ petition. It is submitted by the State that the property in question has been sold out by the owners to the different persons. Copy of the sale deeds executed by the persons have also been filed.

From the facts of the case, it is clear that the sons of Mr. Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Mr. B.B. Sareen have claimed their right to exhibit cinema in Roxy Talkies on the ground that initially Mr. K.D. Marfatiya, who was owner of the property, executed a lease deed and subsequently some partnership deeds were executed. Admittedly, the property was not sold in favour of the heirs of Mr. Sareen or Mr. Sachdeva neither it was sold to the partnership firm. As per the State, during pendency of the writ petition, property has already been sold out in favour of number of persons. The sale deeds executed by the owners have also been filed. The petitioners have not controverted the aforesaid facts. The exhibition of cinema has also been stopped in the talkies for the last eleven years. In these circumstances, in my opinion, at present it can not be said that whether the petitioners have right to exhibit the cinema or not. This court rejected the application for grant of interim relief vide order dt. 6.3.2006. Hence, in my opinion, it would be just and proper that the matter be remanded back to the Licensing Authority after quashing the orders dt. 28.7.2005 (Annexure P/1) & dt. 16.12.2003 (Annexure P/11) to consider the facts afresh that whether petitioners and respondent No. 3 have right to exhibit the cinema in the talkies in view of the subsequent development. I order accordingly.

Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.