R.K.Gulati, J. - (1.) THROUGH this application under Section 12 of the contempt Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") the applicant has desired that this Court may take contempt proceedings against Sri K. P. Singh, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, and Sri P. K. Srivastava, Entertainment Tax Inspector, Robertsganj, to punish them for having wilfully flouted the order of this Court dated 19th April, 1990 passed in writ petition No. 6483 of 1987 Chunni Lai Gupta v. State of U. P.
(2.) THE applicant runs a video show parlour. It appears that under the provisions of U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act. 1951, the applicant was being required to pay entertainment tax at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day, i.e. Rs. 1050/- per week towards the running of his video parlour. THE applicant challenged the said levy as unauthorised by filing a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petttion No. 6483 of 1987. While entertaining the writ petition, by an order dated 26th March, 1987. a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim order which was to the following effect :- "In case the petitioner pays the rate of Rs. 500/- per week towards the entertainment tax and furnishes security for the balance to the satisfaction of the District Entertainment Tax Officer, Mirzapur, the respondents shall not interfere with the running of his business of exhibiting pictures. THE petitioner shall be entitled to exhibit the picture only on complying with the aforesaid conditions. In the event of default this stay order shall stand automatically vacated". THE above order was subsequently confirmed by an order dated 27-11-1987. With effect from 1st May, 1989 it seems that some amendment was brought about in the provisions of 'the Entertainment Act as a result whereof, the applicant felt-that under the amended law he could be charged entertainment tax only at the rate of Rs. 250/- per week. Accordingly, the applicant/petitioner moved this Court for the amendment of the interim order aforesaid. By an order dated 19th April. 1990 a fresh interim order was passed which reads as under - "The interim order dated 26-3-1987 is modified as below : - In case the petitioner pays Rs. 250/- per week towards the entertainment tax, the District Entertainment Tax Officer, Sonbhadra, shall not interfere with the running of the business of exhibiting picturess. In case of default, this interim order shall stand automatically discharged". On 31st March. 1990, before the interim order was amended, the applicant made a deposit of Rs. 2000/- towards the entertainment tax which was in respect of the period 2nd April, 1990 to 29th April, 1990, i.e. for four weeks at the rate of Rs. 500/- per week in terms of unamended earlier interim order. According to the applicant as the interim order bad been modified on 19th April, 1990, and under the amended order he was required to pay after that date only at the rate of Rs. 250/- per week, thus the deposit made by him on J31st March; 1990 was in excess by Rs. 392/86P than what he was required to pay in respect of the period to which the payment of Rs. 2000/- pertained. In the next deposit towards the entertainment tax made by the applicant-petitioner on 1st May, 1990, the petitioner adjusted the sum of Rs. 392/86 which be thought, was excess payment already made, and deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 107/14 towards entertainment tax for the period 30th April, 1990 to 13th May, 1990. Thereafter, by an order dated 25th October, 1990 the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, the first respondent, ordered the closure of the applicant's video parlour, taking the view that the deposit of Rs. 107/14 was not in terms of the stay order dated 19th April, 1990, inasmuch as, the deposit ought to have been at the rate of Rs. 250/- per week. Further, as the petitioner had failed to abide by the stay order dated 19th April, 1990'strictly to its terms, that order automatically stood vacated as envisaged in the stay order itself.
(3.) IT is in this background that the present application for contempt has been filed on the allegation that the order of the first respondent while effecting the closure of the video parlour acted in flagrant violation of the stay order dated 19th April, 1990 granted by this Court. According to the applicant the opposite parties have committed a contemptuous act in passing the order dated 25th October, 1990 and directing the closure of the video parlour. Having heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned counsel for the applicant in my opinion, no case for taking any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act has been made out.;