CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 11 JH CK 0044

M/s. Sujata Picture Palace and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 23 November 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 3766 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 357 words

Aparesh Kumar Singh

1.

The sheet anchor of the petitioner''s argument is that under provisions of Section 9(2)(a) of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulations), Act, 1954, the State Government has been conferred with the power to frame rules prescribing the terms, conditions, restrictions and imposition of fees, subject to which, license may be granted under the Act. Rules in exercise of powers u/s 9 of the Act of 1954 were framed in the year 1974 and subsequently Rule 10 prescribed the fees which were chargeable from the licensees for a particular period.

2.

It is the contention of the petitioner that by the impugned resolution contained at Annexure-1 dated 6th January, 2006 by which the license fee has been raised, the requirement of the Act of 1954 and the Rules of 1974 have not been met, as no amendment in the Rules in question has been made for enhanced levy of the license fee or for the revision in the license fee.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to Section 2(e) of the Act of 1954 while advancing his arguments in respect of the power to levy the fee conferred under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974.

4.

The respondents appear to have justified their enhancement of license fee on the basis of policy decision dated 6th January, 2006 approved by the Cabinet being Jharkhand Cinema Promotion Policy, 2005. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not able to dispute that the Rules in question have not been amended.

5.

In the circumstances, since the issue involves an important question relating to the revenue of the State and has been pending since the year 2007, the respondents'' counsel is allowed time to seek specific instructions over the matter and file its considered response within a period of four weeks.

6.

Accordingly, list this case on 21.12.2012.

7.

It would be proper if the affidavit is filed by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand after consideration of the matter involved. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel for the respondent-State.