AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gangadhara Rao
Both the Writ petitions are filed by Sri P. Rama Babu Proprietor Happy Comer, Vijayawada. Since common questions are raised in both the writ petitions they are disposed by this Judgment. W.P. No. 4269 of 1975 is filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Commissioner and Special Officer, Vijayawada Municipality the respondent dt. 2-8-1975. W.P. No. 2226 of 1976 is filed to quash the order of the same officer dated 7-7-1976.
In order to appreciate the questions raised in these two Writ Petitions, it is necessary to state a few facts. The petitioner submitted an application in 1969 to the Vijayawada Municipality for construction of building for running an Amusement Park, but no permission was granted to him by the Municipality. He applied for a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 (hereinafter called the Act) and it was granted by the Chairman of the Vijayawada Municipality on 10-9-1971. Subsequently it was cancelled. Thereupon he filed a Writ Petition in this Court and obtained interim directions. Subsequently at no time the Municipality renewed his license, but the petitioner went on filing writ petitions year after year in this Court and was obtaining interim directions and by virtue of these interim directions he was running the amusement park. When the respondent refused to renew the licence from 13-5-1975 to 12-5-1976 he filed W. P No. 4/69/75. Similarly when the respondent refused to renew the licence from 13-5-1976 to 12-5-1977 he filed W.P. No. 2226 of 1976.
Arguments were advanced by Sri Shivshankar in W.P. No. 2226 of 1976 and I propose to deal with it first. The facts in this writ petition are that on 23-4-1976 the petitioner filed an application for renewal, of his licence under the Act from 13-5-1976 for one year. Till 10-5-1976 when no orders were received by him on that application he filed W.P. No. 1618 of 1976 in this Court. It was dismissed on 21-6-1976 directing the respondent to pass orders on that application expeditiously. Thereupon the respondent passed an order on 7-7-1976 refusing to grant the licence to the petitioner. Questioning that order the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 2226 of 1976.
The respondent has refused to grant the licence primarily on two grounds. First, there was violation of Rule 2 (a) and Rule 30 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Places of Public Resort Rules. Secondly, there is strong objection and there is also an uproar from the public because the amusement park is being used for gambling purposes. To substantiate that it is being used for gambling purposes, he has also given devils of the criminal casts launched by the Police Department in regard to the gambling carried on in the amusement park.
The learned counsel for the petitioner questions the order of the respondent on the following grounds. First no notice was given to the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him u/s 6 of the Act to rectify the defects. Without giving any such notice and an opportunity for him to rectify the defects, it is not proper for the respondent to refuse the licence on the ground. Secondly, the petitioner was not given a notice or opportunity with regard to the objections received from the public. In the criminal cases filed against the petitioner and his employees, they were acquitted. Therefore, that cannot be taken as a ground to refuse the licence, It is also submitted that there was a public uproar, is not a relevant consideration for refusing the licence under Sec. 7 of the Act.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in fact, notice was given to the petitioner on 28-6-1975 to rectify the twelve defects mentioned therein but the petitioner has rectified only five defects pointed out, but did not attend to the other defects till now. Therefore it is submitted that the rejection of the licence on the ground that there was violation of Rule 2 (a) and Rule 30 (3) is valid. It is also Submitted that the gambling was going on in the amusement park which is evident from the number of criminal cases filed against the petitioner and others that attended the park, and therefore the amusement park was not being used solely for the purpose for which the licence was granted. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his men were acquitted in appeals in some cases, but their conviction was confirmed in some other cases and even otherwise, it makes no difference while considering the question whether, in fact gambling was being carried on in the amusement park within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act.
In order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to refer to section 7 of the Act.
It reads as follows:--
If the authority is satisfied--
(a) that the enclosed place or building may safely be used for the purpose of public resort or entertainment proposed
(b) that no objection arising from its situation, ownership, or the purpose proposed, exists.
he shall give to the applicant a written licence signed by him, specifying the enclosure or building and the purpose for which it is to be used. Such licence shall be in such form and subject to such fee and conditions as the State Government may from time to time by rule direct.
If the authority is not satisfied as aforesaid, he may refuse to grant a licence, recording his reasons for refusal in writing.
There is no provision in the Act for renewal of the licence. It is only provided under rule 25 (6) which reads as follows :--
25 (6) Any licence granted may from time to time be renewed at the discretion of the licensing authority.
(a) in the case of an annual licence, for further periods of one year at a time ; and
(b) in the case of a temporary licence for such further periods as the licensing authority may think fit, but not exceeding at a time the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (2) as the case may be.
It is not disputed that while deciding the question whether a licence should be renewed or not, the authority should take into consideration the matters provided in section 7.
The question for my consideration in this writ petition is whether the reasons given by the Special Officer for rejecting the licence are valid or not. As stated by me already, the first reason is that he was violated Rule 2 (a) and Rule 30 (5) of the Rules. He has given a number of instances in the order. They are questions of facts and it is not within my province to go into those questions in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The next question is whether he could make those defects aground for refusing to renew the licence. It is true that u/s 6 of the Act, on receipt of an application for a licence, the authority shall inspect the place or building in respect of which licence Is required and may call on the applicant by notice in writing, to make any alteration or addition in the material or arrangement of the enclosure or building, or the precautions for the safety of the public to be assembled therein, and may refuse to grant a licence until the alteration or addition it made. In this case, the respondents has given notice to the petitioner on 28-6-1975 pointing out twelve defects and calling upon him to rectify them. It is stated in the counter that he had rectified only five defects, but not others. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had rectified all the defects except four. These facts go to show that certainly a notice was given to the petitioner u/s 6 of the Act to rectify the defects and he has not rectified all those defects. In that case, it is certainly a valid ground to refuse the grant of licence.
The next question is whether the licencee could be refused on the ground that there was strong objection and uproar from the public and certain criminal cases were also filed against the petitioner and his men as well as others for offences under the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act.
In W.P. No. 3418 of 1969, Justice Obul Reddi (as he then was) and Madhava Reddy J held that a licence cannot be refused on the sole ground that there was a hue and cry and there were complaints from the public about the running of the entertainment. Following that decision, I hold that a licence cannot be refused to the petitioner on the sole ground that there were strong objection and uproar from the public not to grant licence to the petitioner. But in this case, the licence was not refused to the petitioner on the sole ground there was an uproar from the public. Other reasons are also given.
The next question is that since a number of criminal cases were field against the petitioner and his men, and others who attended the petitioner''s amusement park under the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, it is a relevant consideration for rejecting the licence to the petitioner. The petitioner says that he and his men had been acquitted in all these cases while the respondent says that he had been acquitted only in some cases. But I am of the opinion that whether the petitioner had been convicted or acquitted in the criminal cases makes no difference. The real Question is as to what is the effect of filing such criminal cases against the petitioner and his henchmen and some other persons who had attended the amusement park. These cases were filed under the A.P. Gaming Act. The filing of these cases shows that certainly gambling was going on in the amusement park. It is not disputed that a licence is not granted under the Act for carrying on gambling. On the contrary, if gambling is carried on it is contrary to the provisions of the licence and it can be cancelled. u/s 7, the authority shall give a licence if he is satisfied that the enclosed place or building may be safely used for the purpose of public entertainment proposed and no objection arising from its situation, ownership or the purpose proposed exists. Therefore if an objection exists for the purpose proposed, a licence need not be granted. Similarly, when the authority gives the licence, he has to specify the purpose for which it is to be used. Obviously when it is not used for the purpose specified or when it is used for a purpose not specified, equally it will be a relevant consideration within the meaning of section 7 to refuse to renew the licence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when once the respondent has some materiel before him to show that gambling was being carried on in the amusement park of the petitioner, he is entitled to refuse the licence. The fact that the petitioner or his men have been acquitted in the criminal cases is of no consequence. It is common knowledge that in a criminal case an accused is acquitted if the prosecution cannot prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not conclusive of the matter. It only means they were not found guilty of offences under the Gaming Act. It does not follow therefrom that gambling was not going on in the amusement park of the petitioner Apart from that, according to the respondent, their convictions have been confirmed in certain cases Therefore, I hold that the reasons given by the respondent for rejecting the licence to the petitioner are valid.
I may add, that even assuming that one reason given by the respondent is not sustainable, it does not follow that his entire order should be quashed if it could be sustained on other reasons. Vide State of Maharashtra vs. B.K. Takka More 1967 SC 1352. Before I conclude, I may also refer to the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in W. A. No. 913 of 1975 dated 8 12-1975 and V. Venkatakrishna vs. District Magistrate 1976 II APLJ 61 which go against the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that a revision is provided to the District Magistrate under S. 12 of the Act against the orders of the respondent and the petitioner has not exhausted it. But on that sole ground I am not prepared to dismiss the writ petition, more so, when it has been admitted and the matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for both the parties.
Apart from that, the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for the exercise of my jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. It is only a matter to be taken into consideration while deciding the question, whether relief should he granted to the petitioner or not.
In the result I hold that the order of the respondent dated 7-7-1976 is valid and legal. No other question has been argued before me. Consequently, the writ Petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-. After I have decided the judgment in W.P. No. 2226 of 1976, Sri K.F. Baba, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4269 of 1975 has stated that he would withdraw that Writ Petition. Hence it is dismissed but without costs.