B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 19.12.1995 and 18.8.2003, passed by the statutory authorities under the Entertainment Tax Act, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant -in -aid scheme.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner filed an application on 22.1.1981 before the statutory authority under the Cinematography Act to permit him to raise the construction of a cinema hall and he also submitted the sanction plan. Construction of the cinema hall was completed and he was granted the licence to exhibit the films. He filed an application or granting the benefit of grant -in -aid scheme in terms of the Government Orders dated 21.7.1986 and 8.9.1986 (Annexures -1 and 2). However, his application was not considered. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23844 of 1991 and some interim order was passed in his favour. As the matter was not decided, he filed another Writ Petition No. 13613 of 1993 which was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1993, directing the authority concerned to decide his representation. The petitioner filed the representations but could not get the relief and the respondents have recorded the entertainment tax from him. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 65 of 1996 for quashing the order of recovery, but he could not get any relief and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. He also continued making the representations for refund of entertainment tax deposited by him and the said representations stood dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.8.2003. Hence this petition. Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the grant -in -aid scheme under the aforesaid G.Os. but could not get it because of inaction/arbitrary action of the respondent authorities. He is entitled to recover the said amount. In support of his case, he has placed reliance upon large number of judgments of this Court, wherein a refund has been directed. The said judgments are in Writ Petition No. 3131 of 1986, Smt. Meera Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 26th April, 1989, wherein this Court had quashed the cut -off date and also directed the authority concerned to refund the amount of entertainment tax deposited by petitioner. Subsequent thereto, other petitions had been allowed following the said judgment, particularly. Writ Petition No. 5980 of 1990, Bhagyawanti Palace, Varanasi v. State, decided on 7.2.1991 ; Writ Petition No. 7277 of 1991, Paras Palace v. State of U.P., decided on 13.1.1995 ; Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1991. Gopal Movie House, Budaun v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 5.4.1994. It has been submitted by Shri Khare that as in the aforesaid judgment and orders directed of refund of the entertainment tax deposited by the cinema owner had been made, petitioner cannot be denied the same benefits. Petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in this petition.
(3.) THERE is a complete fallacy in the submission made by Shri Khare. In our opinion, in all the aforesaid cases which had been allowed by this Court, neither the issue of unjust enrichment had been raised by the State nor that point could be taken into consideration by this Court as none of the cinema owner could have submitted that they had not passed on the liability of entertainment tax to the cinema -goers. Therefore, the submission made by Shri Khare that the aforesaid judgments are binding on us is not tenable.;