TAJDIN JAVERBHAI MAVANY Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of order dated 19th July 1966 by which the respondent no. 3, the District Magistrate of Goa, rejected the application of the petitioners for grant of a permanent licence in respect of Cine Niagara at Curchorem is assailed. The prayer made is that a writ of the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution, setting aside the order mentioned above be issued against the three respondents. The first two respondents in the case are the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and the Union of India.

(2.) For proper appreciation of the points involved the facts of the case have to be set out in some detail. It was in the year 1956 that the petitioners moved the appropriate authorities for permission to erect a cinema building at Curchorem. The permission was granted on 18th of October 1957 and the building was completed by the middle of 1959. It was on 3rd of July 1959 that the Municipal Committee of Quepem passed a resolution allowing the petitioners to use the building as a cinema house. The licence to that effect was issued in favour of the petitioners on 14th of December, 1959. It was sometime in the year 1960 that the petitioners began to exhibit films in their cinema at Curchorem.

(3.) Soon after the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enforced in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory promulgated on 29th of July 1965 a set of rules (hereinafter called the Rules) formulated under the Act. The Rules necessitated submission of applications for grant of licences for running the cinemas which were in existence before the promulgation of the Rules. Consequently the petitioners made an application on 19th of September 1965 to the District Magistrate, Goa, for the grant of permanent licence. It is said that pending disposal of that application the petitioners were issued temporary permit in terms of the Rules from time to lime and the last permit issued to them, before the present petition was made, was valid from 1st to 31st of July 1966.