GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY Vs. S MUTHUKUMARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in all these Writ Appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following Common Judgment.

(2.) THE Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Commissioner, Pondicherry Municipality, aggrieved by the identical but separate orders of the learned single Judge, quashing the 'prohibition portion' of the impugned Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 27/las/2005, dated 20. 09. 2005, and directing the Commissioner, Pondicherry Municipality, to consider the application of the Writ Petitioners for renewal of licence to use their premises as a place of public resort for conducting classical dance programmes and to pass orders thereon within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, filed the above Writ Appeals.

(3.) FOR the sake of convenience, we shall refer the case of S. Muthukumaraswamy, Proprietor of Fillo Hotel, petitioner in W. P. No. 39280 of 2005. The said Muthukumaraswamy is the sole proprietor of Fillo Hotel, running hotel business at Door No. 4/14, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry. The grievance of the writ petitioner/respondent is that the licence held by him for conducting classical dance programmes in his hotel, which was valid upto 30. 11. 2005, has not been renewed further and his application for renewal of the said licence was rejected by the Pondicherry Municipality by order dated 30. 11. 2005. The main ground of the writ petitioner/respondent is that the Municipal Authorities cannot reject the application for renewal of the licence by taking resort to the Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 27/las/2005, dated 20. 09. 2005, and that the writ petitioner has a unfettered right to claim the renewal of licence by virtue of Section 349 of the Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973, and that, having regularly paid the necessary fees and taxes for the purpose of holding such classical dance programme in their Hotel, the authorities concerned cannot deny the request for renewal of the existing valid licence for a further period. The respondents/appellants filed a counter affidavit and contested the matter. It is the case of the Government of Pondicherry and the Municipality that the Government, by taking a policy decision, passed G. O. Ms. No. 27/las/2005, dated 20. 09. 2005, by virtue of which, grant of fresh licences for holding dance shows and floor shows in public premises such as hotels, etc. was prohibited. The said Government Order proclaimed that there shall not be issuance of fresh licence for performing Indian classical dance, western dance and floor shows. On the basis of the said Government order, the licences of Sun Guest House and Fillo Hotel, which were valid till 30. 09. 2005, were not renewed. It is further stated that, under the Rules of Business of the Union Territory under Section 46 (1) of the Union Territories Act, 1983, the Minister concerned is competent to issue direction, hence, the said Government Order is valid and operative. Learned single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition along with connected W. Ps. , after considering the Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 27/las/2005, dated 20. 09. 2005, quashed a portion of the said order to the extent it prohibits the authorities from issuing any fresh licence in so far as the performance of Indian classical dance is concerned on the ground that it is an infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. By quashing a part of the Government Order, the learned Judge also quashed the consequential orders of the Pondicherry Municipality and directed the Commissioner, Pondicherry Municipality, to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence afresh and pass orders thereon within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.