- (1.) The appellant herein, who was the writ petitioner before the High court, filed the writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal wherein the Commissioner had set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the licence given to Prakash Palance Video Parlour, Respondent 3 to run a video parlour.
(2.) The main grievance of the appellant before the High Court was that prakash Palance Video Parlour, Respondent 3 was situated within 350 metres from Sai Chalchitra and hence no licence could be granted to Respondent 3 to run a video parlour under the U. P. Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules, 1988. It was also asserted that the exhibition of video films by Respondent 3 had badly affected the cinema business of the appellant as the video parlour was situated very close to the cinema hall of the appellant. It was also submitted that the grant of licence in favour of respondent 3 was in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 7 (1-A) (a) , (b) and (c) of the U. P. Regulation of Cinema Act, 1955. Under section 7 (1-A) , licence could be cancelled or revoked on the following grounds: "(A) that the licence was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation; or (b) that the licensing authority or the State Government while considering the application or appeal, as the case may be, under Section 5 was under a mistake as to a matter essential to the question of grant or refusal of licence; or (c) that the licensee has been guilty of breach of the provisions of this act or the rules made thereunder or of any conditions or restrictions contained in the licence, or of any direction issued under sub-section (4) of section 5; or"
(3.) The writ petition was contested by the State of U. P. as well as respondent 3.;