Alankar Talkies vs District Magistrate

Akil Kureshi, J.—Rule. Learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah who appears on advance copy waives service of rule for Respondent State .

The Petitioner has challenged legality of an order dated 30.9.2010 by which besides others, Petitioners was asked to produce a certificate from the Municipal Corporation that no dues of Corporation are pending. Rest of the dues according to the Petitioners have been cleared. Commissioner Junagadh informed the Additional District Magistrate under communication dated 9.11.2009 that the Corporation has yet to recover an amount of Rs. 15,21,105/- towards the show tax which the Petitioner has not yet paid.

It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was running a Cinema Hall in Junagadh city since years. However, since 2005, due to variety of reasons and competition from other quarters, it was no longer viable for the Petitioner to run cinema hall. Activity of exhibiting film in the cinema hall was stopped since year 2005. The Petitioner therefore, did not want to continue the said business. He therefore, applied to the Respondents on 14.9.2009 and requested for cancellation of license to run the cinema. In response to the said application, impugned communication Annexure-A came to be issued.

Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that Petitioner has already filed Civil Suit against recovery of Rs. 15,21,105/- raised by the Municipal Corporation and competent Court has also issued injunction against such recovery. He further pointed out that under similar circumstances, other cinema owners had approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13334/2009, wherein in identical circumstances, Learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 12.1.2010 directed the authorities to decide the application of that Petitioner afresh. Counsel further stated that pursuant to the said order dated 12.1.2010 of the High Court, license of the Petitioner therein came to be cancelled by the competent authority.

Facts are similar in the present case also. The Petitioner has produced stay order from the competent Court against the demand of the Municipal Corporation. It is the sole ground on which his request for cancellation of license is not being considered. Quite apart from similarity between two situation i.e. the present Petitioner''s case and one involved in Special Civil Application No. 13334/2009 and the fact that Corporation''s demand is stayed by the Civil Court, I fail to understand how for past dues of the Corporation authority can refuse permission to cancel license of the Petitioner. Dues can be recovered in accordance with law even effecting coercive recovery if so permitted. However, it is quite another thing to suggest that request for cancellation of license can be stalled on any post demand. Continuation of license would entail several liabilities including payment of license fees, maintaining cinema hall in proper condition, providing for safety and fire protection, maintaining hygiene etc. when the entire business is stopped since years, it would be a difficult task for any businessman to provide for such facilities without generating any revenue. In fact, continuing such license may also result in deterioration of property which may even be hazardous in a given situation.

Considering all these aspects of the matter, impugned communication dated 30.9.2010 is quashed. Additional Magistrate shall issue order cancelling license of the Petitioner ignoring the past demand of the Corporation unless there is any other ground which legally permits the State Authority to withhold such permission. This may be done within one month from today.

With above directions, petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.

Direct service is permitted.