KALIPADA BARIK Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MIDNAPORE & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
District Magistrate, Midnapore And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Satyabrata Sinha, J. -
(1.)The petitioner in - this application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and/or Cinema State Respondent Authorities of District Midnapore to grant and extend the cinema licence issued in the name of your petitioner for running the cinema hall named "Samrat Cinema" at Dhaneswarpur at Khakurda with immediate effect by quashing the impugned order dated 2nd Sept., 1996 ;
(b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Ceritorari directing the respondent authorities to transmit to this Hon 'ble Court all the necessary records and papers in connection with the said licence, so that conscionable justice can be done by passing appropriate order and/or orders; direction and/or directions;
(2.)The petitioner was a lessee in respect of the place in question. He was granted a licence to run a cinema hall. He filed an application for renewal of the said cinema licence and the said application was not considered and the petitioner filed a writ application, and by an order dated 26.7.89 a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the matter with the following directions:
"The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to run the cinema house on the same basis on which the petitioner is running for another period of three months from 28.7.89. The petitioner must comply with all the formalities and requirements of law and furnish all requisites asked for by the competent authority. AH taxes must be paid duly. If the petitioner fails to carry out any instruction or comply with all formalities or requirements of any provision of law, the respondents will be at liberty to stop running of the Cinema House in accordance with law.
The application is treated as on the day's list and directions for filing of the affidavits by the parties are given. The affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed by 16.8.89, the affidavit-in-reply is to be filed by 23.8.89 and the matter will appear on 23.8 89."
(3.)In the meantime the landlord of the petitioner allegedly filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner which has been dismissed. The petitioner's application for renewal of licence, despite of the aforementioned order, has been disposed of by the licensing authority only by an order dated 2.9.96. The said order is contained in Annexure 'K' to this application. The only reason assigned in the said order is that the petitioner does not have a valid lease agreement or ownership document in respect of the same plot.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.