BABULAL Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR PATIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the objector before the District Magistrate, Khargone (respondent No. 2) against the grant of permission to respondent No. 1 to exhibit films through VCR in diverted land SN 316 area 0.129 hectares situated in Kasba Kasravad Bujurg. The objections were overruled and change of place was allowed by respondent No. 2 by order dated 25-1-1994 (Annexure-N). This order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Facts in brief are that earlier licence was granted on the basis of relevant rules framed under the M. P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952 on 18-4-1991 (Annexure-A) to exhibit films in the house of one Pannalal Patidar for the period ending on 31-12-1991. Thereafter on 15-11-1991 a show cause notice (Annexure-B) was issued to suspend the license on the ground of unauthorised alteration of place of exhibition i.e. the place, just 70/ 80 ft. away from New Nimar Talkies. The respondent No. 1 accepted the fault on 28-12-1991 (Annexure-C) and prayed for condonation of lapse. Yet the respondent No. 2 cancelled the license on 11-1-1993 (Annxure D), on violation of rules as also terms and condition. The representation (Annexure-E) dated 22-2-1993 against cancellation was also rejected. By order dated 29-61993 (Annexure-F) the license was granted till 31-12-1993 on the same terms and conditions i.e. for exhibition in the house of Pannalal Patidar. Just after 4 days i.e. on 3-7-1993 the repsondent No. 1 applied Onnexure G) for permission of change to the place which had become the basis for cancellation of license earlier. The petitioner preferred objections (Annexure-H) on 12-7-1993 against the application of 3-7-1993 (Annexure-G). The S. D. O. PWD (respondent No. 3) and Chief Medical and Health Officer (respondent No. 4) submitted enquiry report on 8-7-1993 (Annexure-(I) and report (Annexure-J) respectively recommending grant of permission for change of place as claimed. To the same effect is recommendation of S.D.M. (respondent No. 5) as is reflected by Annexure-K of 11-81993. The report of spot inspection dated 109-1993 is Annexure-L. The respondent No. 5 in his report dated 14-9-1993 (Annexure-M) did not agree with the objections but recommended grant of opportunity to the petitioner objector before passing any order on the application of respondent No. 1. After hearing the petitioner permission was accorded which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order as contained in Annexure-A is arbitrary and illegal. He questions the validity in the face of earlier cancellation (Annexure-D) and rejection of representation (Annexure-E). He hints at elvish design in application (Annexure-G) moved within such a short span of 4 days since grant of license (Annexure-F) restricting it to the house. He contends that objections have been rejected on the irrelevant consideration of competitive spirit. The order, it is urged, is vitiated by non-application of mind and non-consideration of earlier background as chronicled above.