Mini Dreamland and Another vs The State of Meghalaya and Others

K.N. Saikia, C.J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. V.K. Dewan. Heard also Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Meghalaya. The Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm owning a cinema hall known as "Mini Dreamland", which was granted a cinema licence under Rule 6 of the Assam Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1960, as adopted by Meghalaya, in Form B being licence No. 7 dated 30.3.1986. The Petitioners with all requisite certificates and fees applied for renewal of the licence for the year 1986-87. However, in the petition no statement has been made that the cinema licence wat renewed for the year 1986-87. The Petitioners also claim to have applied for renewal of the licence for the year 1987-88, that is, with effect from 1.4.1987 to ''31.3.1988 to the Deputy Commissioner with all requisite certificates from all authorities concerned depositing the renewal fees of Rs. 1000/- with the Government Treasury and annexing the challan thereof. While the Petitioners were expecting renewal order to be received they have been served with the impugned order in Memo No. PN. 5/25/78180 dated 24.8.1987 from the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong requiring the Petitioners to ensure that they close down the cinema hall with immediate effect as their application for renewal of licence has been rejected by the Government, This was with reference to the Government letter No, GAB, 263/80/20 dated 19.8,1987. A copy of the aforesaid Setter dated 19.8.87 was annexed to the aforesaid Memo dated 24.8.87. That letter was from the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, General Administration (B) Department to the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, shillong, and it said:

I am directed to refer to your above letter and to I, say that since operation of Mini Cinema Hall is not in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Cinematographs Act and the Meghalaya Cinema (Regulation Rules, 1980, Govt. have decided that the licence for the Mini Dreamland Cinema will not be renewed.

Mr. Dewan submits that the Government is not the authority under the law to decide renewal of the Petitioners licence and as such the rejection of the Petitioners application for renewal by tie Government of Meghalaya is without jurisdiction; that the impugned order itself ex facie does not show grounds for rejection of the application for renewal it having simply said that it was not in conformity with the relevent provision without specifying what provisions have not been issued with and that the impugned order having been issued as directed by the State Government, the Petitioners could not of the remedy of appeal to the State Government.

Mr. Sarma submits that Petitioners having applied renewal of the licence and their application for renewal having been rejected and the grounds having been stated it is still open to the Petitioners to appeal to the State Government and in the event of the Petitioners so appealing the State Government will surely authorise one of its officers in hear the appeal. Mr. Sarma draws our attention to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Meghalaya Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, which came into force on the 21st day of January, 1972. admittedly the licensing authority is the Deputy Commissioner of the district. Rule 6 of the aforesaid Meghaiaya Rules provides for renewal of licence of permanent cinema as follows:

(1) A licence for a permanent cinema may be granted by the Licensing Authority with the prior approval of the State Government in Form B appended to these Rules.

(2) No permanent cinema house shall be allowed within such a distance as the State Government considers reasonable having regard to the surrounding circumstances, from the existing hospital, educational institutions, places of worship, cremation ground, grave yard, cemetery or other standing permanent cinema house.

(3) The licence granted shall be valid for one year unless revoked earlier by the Licensing Authority, It may be renewed from year to year by the Licensing Authority with the previous approval of the State Government. The application for renewal shall be submitted at least one month before the date of expiry of the existing licence by the licensee in writing to the Licensing Authority by a fee prescribed in Rule 7, and certificates mentioned in Rule 5.

As the above Rule provides for renewal of the licence by the licensing authority with the previous approval of the State Government, it cannot be said that the State Government shall have nothing to do with the renewal of a licence. That, however, need not mean that the State Government itself will pass the order for renewal or rejection thereof. Obtaining of previous approval also implies that the order will be that of the licensing authority. In the instant case the impugned order has been communicated by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the Government letter dated 16.8.87 and that letter clearly shows that the Government have decided that the licence for Mini Dreamland will not be renewed. This order does not show that the Government had not accorded previous approval to the renewal of the Petitioners licence.

In the State of U.P. and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Another, it has been held that the power has to be exercised by the licensing authority and the Court should be vigilent to see that the powers are not exercised in an oppressive or arbitrary manner, on irrelevant or non-germane considerations. Where a statute confers power and casts a duty to perform any function, before the power is exercised or the function is performed the Court cannot in exercise of writ jurisdiction supplant the licensing authority and take upon itself the functions of the licensing authority.

In the instant case whether to renew the licence or not was to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner and whether Approval to the renewal was to be accorded or not was to be decided by the State Government. Since it appears from the letter dated 19.8.87 that the Government itself have decided that the licence for Mini Dreamland will not be renewed, it cannot be said to be a decision in accordance with law. Besides, no reasons have been given why the licence should not be renewed or what were the shortcomings in the Petitioners application for renewal. Mr. Dewan''s submission that the State Government had nothing to do with the renewal of the Petitioners'' licence cannot be (accepted in view of the Rule 6, particularly Sub-rule (3) thereof. In view of the clear provision in the Rule the decision in Mukunda Mohan Talukdar v. K.K. Phukan AIR 1966 Gau 142 will not be applicable except the requirement that the applicants should be given an opportunity of being heard while considering the question of renewal.

We accordingly set aside the orders dated 24-8-87 as well as the letter dated 19.8.87 and remand the Petitioners'' application for renewal to the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong for disposal in accordance with law after giving the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard.

Mr. Dewan prays that the Petitioners be allowed to on the Mini Dreamland cinema hall pending disposal of their application for renewal. Mr. Dewan admits that the Petitioners is closed down the cinema hall pursuant to the impugned order dated 24.8,87. Though we have set aside the impugned order, as the Petitioners are not possessing any licence for the cinema hall we have to reject the prayer. Mr. Sarma states at the application for renewal will be disposed of within seven days from today. The Petitioners shall also appear be the Deputy Commissioner on 11-9-1987 to receive instructions as to hearing of the application for renewal. It will open for the Petitioners to make prayer for interim order be the Deputy Commissioner, if they are so advised. In so far we are concerned, we are unable to accede to the prayer for ruining the cinema hall during this period of seven days or until the Petitioners obtain any order from the Deputy Commissioner to that effect.

In the result this petition is accepted to the extent indicated above. No costs.

Let the Petitioners as well as Mr. Sarma, the learned Govt. Advocate, Meghalaya be furnished with a copy of this order for doing the needful.