- (1.) THESE two writ petitions Nos. 1217 of 1981 and 1210 of 1981, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s United Pictures and M/s T. Naveen Pictures respectively, involve common questions of law and facts. They are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) WRIT Petition No. 1217 of 1981 relates to the film 'bin Maa Ke Bache' and the writ petition No. 1210/81 appertains to the film "kranti". M/s K. S. Enterprises, Motion Picture Producers, Bombay, producer of the film 'bin Maa Ke Bache' moved an application to the Government of Raj. for exemption of the exclusion of the film from payment of entertainment tax under the provisions of s. 7 of the Raj. Entertainment (Advertisement) Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957' ). The Government, after considering the material placed before it, vide order dated 25th February, 1981 (Annexure 7), granted exemption from payment of entertainment tax along with additional entertainment tax for a period of six months. The above noted order was published in the Rajasthan Gazette. In the terms of the order the petitioner was required to produce a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the same was produced. The case of the petitioner, M/s United Pictures, is that prior to (he passing of the above noted order, dated 25th February, 1981 (Annexure 7), it purchased three prints of "bin Maa Ke Bache". In view of the exemption from payment of entertainment tax, it further purchased four extra prints of the film in order to avail itself of the benefit of the exemption and for that purpose it paid an extra sum of Rs. 1,37,000/ -. It also required a sole distributorship i. e. the right of the letting out on hire the films in the State of Rajasthan. It entered into agreements with the proprietors of various cinema houses with an express condition that the exhibition of the picture would be 'tax free'. On 30th July, 198!, the Government of Rajasthan, after revising its opinion, passed another order, Annexure 9, whereby the exemption of recovery of entertainment tax and additional tax was withdrawn and the previous order, dated 25th February, 1981, relating to the picture 'bin Maa Ke Bache" and order dated 20th April, 1981 pertaining to film "kranti" relating to the exemption from payment of tax were cancelled. The allegation of M/s T. Naveen Pictures is that the producer of the film "kranti", M/s V. I. P. Film Bombay made an application to the State of Rajasthan under section 7 of the Act of 1957. The Government after considering the material placed before it passed an order on April 20, 1981 (Annexure 5), exempting the above noted Hindi film "kranti" from payment of entertainment tax including additional entertainment tax for a period of six months. The petitioner M/s Naveen Pictures are sole distributors of that film in the territory of the State of Rajasthan. The Producer was directed to supply copies of the film to the Audio Visual Education Officer, Ajmer and for that purpose to execute a bond in a sum of Rs, 10,000/ -. A bank guarantee was also submitted to the Government by the Producer. The distributors purchased three prints in the first instance. Its case is that after grant of exemption it further purchased four prints so that benefit of tax exemption could be availed of through out the territory of Rajasthan. After the issuance of the exemption order the firm entered into contract with the owners of the various cinema houses to exhibit the film and it also took on hire some of the cinema houses. As already noted above, on 30th July, 1981 the Government of Rajasthan revised its opinion and withdrew the exemption. The impugned order has been marked as Annexure 7 in writ petition No. 1210/81. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged the validity of the order, dated 30th July, 1981, withdrawing the exemption granted in favour of the petitioners on the following grounds :- (i) The State Government has exhausted its powers under section 7 of the Act of 1957 after passing order regarding exemption from payment of entertainment tax on the exhibited of the above noted films. A right of review does not exist unless conferred by law. The right of review is a substantive right and is not a procedural one. Such a right could not have been exercised by the State Government to the prejudice of the interest of the petitioners, (ii) that the State Government is barred by the principle of equitable estoppel and as such could not have cancelled its previous orders. The State Government by passing the above noted two orders of exemption and publishing the same in the State Gazette, gave an assurance to the petitioners which was intended to affect the legal relationship between the petitioners and others and the petitioners, having relied upon such orders, had acted in pursuance of them and spent huge amounts and entered into various agreements with other parties. It was not open to the State Government to revert to a position as if no such directions or assurance had been given; and (iii) that the impugned order dated 30th July, 1981, revoking the exemption granted in respect of the above noted two pictures, was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing of notice to the petitioners and as such it violates the principle of natural justice. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has con-trovarted, with equal vehemence, the above noted contention and also raised a preliminary point that the petitioners did not have a locus standee to file the present writ petitions.
(3.) I will first deal with the question of locus standee and thereafter I will deal with other points raised by the petitioners. The petitioners' contention is that they were interested in exhibition of the films in the cinema houses throughout Rajasthan for a period of six months in terms of the exemption of entertainment tax and additional tax granted to them by the State Government. Learned counsel then urged that the founding fathers of the constitution have designedly couched Article 226 in a comprehensive phraseology to enable the High Court to remedy injustice where-ever it is found. The scope and power of the High Court is wider than that exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 32. The word "aggrieved" person is a comprehensive word of wider import. It cannot be confined within the bounds of rigid exact and inflexible definition. As aggrieved person in the context is that person who has a particular or peculiar interest of his own, beyond that of a general public, in showing that the law has not been properly administered. The petitioners, after spending huge amounts in purchasing extra prints to be exhibited through-out Rajasthan, are certainly persons especially interested and they cannot be considered at par with others. They have a right to raise objection to the order of revocation as it is to affect their pecuniary interest to great extent. Revocation of the orders of exemption is going to create certain pecuniary liabilities on the petitioners as some of the cinema owners have refused to exhibit the films on the ground that it would not be profitable for them to exhibit them if they were to collect entertainment tax. As the commercial interest of the petitioners is going to be adversely affected by the impugned orders, they can well be termed to be aggrieved persons, entitled to file the writ petitiones. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on M. V. Kuppuswami vs. The Taluk Supply Officer, Sriperumbudur (1), S. Subba Rao vs. Puli Veeraraghaviah (2), Appenna vs. The State of Karnataka (3) and Bhan-warlal vs. Rajasthan State (4 ). M. V. Kuppuswami's case (1) relates to the seizure of goods by the authorities from the owner of a public carrier and the question which arose before their Lordships was as to whether the possessor of the goods in the course of transit could challenge the validity of the seizure. The judgment held that possession is a good tite against any one who cannot show a better right. This case has no bearing on the point in issue. ;