Amarendra Nath Giri vs State of West Bengal

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The present writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to forbear from taking any step or further steps pursuant to the purported notice vide memo. No. 1039/L.T. dated December 28, 1988, copy of which is Annex. ''F'', to the writ petition and further commanding the Respondents to withdraw and/or rescind the impugned order dated January 7, 1989, passed by the District Magistrate and Licensing Authority, Midnapore, cancelling the temporary licenceNo. 18/87 issued to the Petitioner and declaring the Petitioner disqualified for holding such licence for a period of ten years in terms of Section. 4 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922.

It is stated in details that the Petitioner obtained the temporary licence to exihibit cinema shows with effect from June 17, 1987 to September 7, 1987. Subsequently, it was detected on enquiry that the licensee had fraudulently recorded the payment of entertainment tax and show tax by Selling duplicate and false tickets with cut/used entertainment tax stamps affixed on the said tickets sold and by submitting false returns of daily sale of tickets. A notice to show cause was given. Reply was filed and by the impugned order dated January 7, 1989, the Licensing Authority found that the allegations had been satisfactorily Droved, and hence he proceeded in exercising the powers conferred upon the Licensing Authority u/s 4B of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922. The Licensing Authority, lamely the Collector, rejected the temporary licence holding, inter alia, that the licensee would not be entitled to ask for grant of licence for a period of 10 years for fraudulently evading payment of entertainment tax and show cause.

Being aggrieved the Petitioner has come to the writ Court and obtained an interim order passed by Pratibha Bonnerjea 3. (as Her lordship then was) for maintenance of status quo. The writ petition was moved on January 12, 1989, and an interim order of status quo was directed to be maintained for a limited period. Subsequently, by the order dated January 31, 1989, the interim order has been extended to continue until further orders.

In the pending writ petition another application was filed for necessary orders to permit the Petitioner to run the Cinema Hall named ''Sagarika'' as per increased rate as shown in para. 15 of the application filed on July 25, 1991.

Both the applications are being seriously opposed by the State Respondents. Necessary affidavits have been filed For effective adjudication this Court directed the production of the entire records by the contesting the State Respondents. Pursuant to such directions the entire records have been produced and Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, the Learned Counsel for the State Respondents, has taken this Court to the entire records including the order-sheet and various applications filed by the parties and other materials as contained thereto.

Mr. Dutt, appearing for the writ Petitioner, has strongly contested that the temporary licence has since been rejected and the same has got to be affirmed by the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, u/s 4B(2) of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922, and, in fact, no copy of the impugned order was served upon the Petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given as to the confirmation of the impugned order by the Commissioner, Burdwan Division.

Mr. Dutta has also strongly contended, inter alia, that a fraud has been practised upon the Petitioner, inasmuch as on the blank order-sheet signature of the Petitioner was obtained and as it would appear that the date was mentioned as December 7, 1988, which was subsequently) deleted and written as January 7, 1989. In fact, there was no such order of January 7, 1989, and no copy of any such order was served upon him. There are various alleged irregularities and illegalities for which intervention of the Court is necessary. Having heard Mr. Dutt for the Petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee for the State Respondent at length and, having gone through the entire records of this case, this Court finds that a notice to show cause was in fact served upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner has admittedly been directed to appear. There are letters written to the Licensing Authority on December 28, 1988, and January 7, 1989, to this effect. It appears that there was a notice to show cause and an opportunity of hearing was given. The Petitioner has also challenged the impugned order before this Court. Whether the Petitioner had signed the order-sheet on December 7, 1988 or January 7, 1989, is not very relevant. The Petitioner is aware of the order dated January 7, 1989, which will be clear from the averment made in the writ petition. Admittedly on January 7, the licence had been cancelled. On January 12, 1989, order of status quo was made. On enquiry it transpires that the Petitioner is still running the cinema shows without the licence granted by the Licensing Authority. An interim order was passed by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo. this Court does not appreciate that by virtue of any order of status quo the Petitioner will be entitled to run cinema shows. If there is no service of a copy of the impugned order or if (here is no opportunity of hearing at all, then it would have been a different story. this Court does not find that the impugned order dated January 7 was made prior to January 7, or there is any fraud appearing on the record. On the contrary the Petitioner appears to be aware of the impugned order and the allegations made by him are found to be wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. The Petitioner has been found to have committed a serious offence for selling duplicate tickets and also defrauded by avoiding payment of amusement tax for which certain allegations have been made and are found to be proved. After obtaining the interim order of status quo the Petitioner has run cinema shows for more than two years, which cannot be supported according to law. this Court has also considered the materials on record and it does not find that at the present moment the Petitioner has any right to run the cinema shows and the question of any prayer to increase the rate under these circumstances, does not arise. I find no merit in this writ petition. Hence the petition is rejected. All interim orders are vacated. There will be an order as to costs assessed at 30 G. Ms. to be paid by the Petitioner. A prayer for stay of operation of this order is made and the same is rejected.