- (1.) After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to entertain this petition seeking review of judgment dated 19.8.2011, as passed in D.B.S.A.W. No. 345 of 2002 by a Division Bench of this Court to which, one of us (Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) was a member.
(2.) The appeal aforesaid was directed against the order dated 18.4.2002 as passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 930 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and consequently upheld the demand raised towards water charges payable under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 ('the Act') and the Rajasthan irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 ('the Rules').
(3.) In the intra-Court appeal filed by the petitioner- appellant against the aforesaid order dated 18.4.2002, after considering the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules, more particularly Clause 5(a) of Schedule-I of the Rules, which specifies the rate of water charges for industrial purposes; and after considering the fact that the petitioner had its venture of film exhibition in theater, this Court noticed that similar nature question was considered in the cognate matters led by S.A.W. No. 837/2001 Bhupendra Singh v. State, wherein it was held that the activity of fish breeding was that of an industry. In regard to the activity of the petitioner, of exhibition of films, this Court found that the view taken in Bhupendra Singh's case squarely covered the matter and observed as under: "7. The appellant has raised the same arguments, which were raised in the case of Bhupendra Singh both in writ petition and now in this appeal except with the difference that in this case the activity which fall for consideration was "exhibition of films" in cinema theater, whereas in the case of Bhupendra Singly it was fisheries. However, the nature of attack to impugned demand was almost identical in both the cases. The learned Single judge placed reliance on all the leading case law on the subject including the view taken by him in Bhupendra Singh case and held that "exhibition of films in Theater" in also an industry and hence the appellant (writ petitioner) is liable to pay water charges as per the rates specified for "industrial purpose" in Clause 5(a) of the Rules. 8. In our considered opinion, the detail reasoning given in our judgment in the case of Bhupendra Singh delivered today would apply to this case as well as for holding that activity of exhibition of films in cinema theater is also an industry and hence appellant's are liable to pay water charges as per the rates prescribed for "industrial purpose" in Clause 5 (a) of the Rules. Indeed in the light of law laid down in the case of Banglore Water Supply case, we have no hesitation in holding that exhibition of films in Cinema Theater is also an industry.";