LexN. S. SHETHNA versus VINUBHAI HARILAL PANCHAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
N. S. SHETHNA
V.
VINUBHAI HARILAL PANCHAL
August 25, 1966
[K. St:BBA RAO A:"D J.M. SHELAT. JJ.j
Bombay C;11e11ra (Regulalion) Act 1953 and Bombay C:in~n:a Rules
1954-Licence for exhibiting (rf111s a11d Ucence for .telli11J? tlckcfl· re11c1i·-
able front year to year-Contr<n·rr11io11 of Ruf.es in a11c year--lt'lietl1er re-
neu·ed /ice1tce for next year can he suspended.
·rne respondent carried on the hu~inc~s of exhibiting cinc1n.l 10 £r<.iph1c
pictures a Ahmedabad.
Linder the Bombay Cinema Rule, 1954 framed
under the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act 1953 such busine<C> could
be carried on only under a licence renewable from year to year.
The
respondent held a licence for the year 1960.
On June, 1960 a notice
was served on him requiring him to show cause why hi.• licence should
not be suspended for contraventions of the Rules.
An enquiry was insti-
tuted in this connection.
On December 31, 1960 th~ licence issued to
the respondent for the year 1960 expired and an endor>emcnt renewing
it for the next year i.e., 1961 was made on the same date.
Subsequently
as a result of the aforesaid enquiry the first appellant passed an order
suspending the respondent's licence for two months from the date of
service of the order.
Tho service was effected on March 5,
1961.
Aggrieved by this order the respondent filed a writ petition in the High
Court.
The petition was allowed, the High Court taking the view that
the renewed licence y..·as a -separate licence and not ~in continuation of
the licence for 1960 and therefore the renewed licence could not be
suspended without a fresh show cause notice. The appellants came to this
Court \\'ith certificate.
HELD :
The fac'. that under the Bombay Cinema• Rule> renewal is
A
B
c
D
E
not a matter of course. the fact that the licensing authority can in proper
circumstances refuse an application for renewal and is not precluded
from imposing dllferent conditions and can grant it for a dilTorent period
coupled with the absenc~ of any Rules for renewal
are all
indications
F
leading to the reoult that renewal is a fresh
grant
and is not
merely
continuation
of the licence
previously
issued. The High Court
was
therefore correct in allowing the writ petition on -a conclusion that the
show cause notice relating to the licence for th~ year 1960 could not be
regarded
as a show cause notice in respect of the renewal for the next
year and if tbe renewed licence was sought to be affected in the enquiry
a fresh show cause notice relating to the
rencY.'ed licence
"'as ncces-
sarv. [ 180 B-DJ
G
V.C.K. Bus Ser\•ice Ltd. v. 1'h~ Ref,!ional Transport Aurliority, {19571
S.C.R. 663 and Anish v. R.T.S. [1956] Andhra Law Times, 347. refer-
red llO.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 580 of 1964·
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 3, 1961
of
H
the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 146
of 1961.
174
,..
SHETHNA v. HARILAL (She/at, J.)
17 5
A
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. R. Achar, for the appellant
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
S. T. Desai, G. I. $anghi, and B. R. Agarwala, for the res-
pondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sbelat, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat quashing the
order of suspension of a licence for sale of cinema tickets passed
by the first appellant on February, 28, 1961.
At all material times the respondent was carrying on and still
carries 011- the business of exhibiting cinematographic picture
at Lakshmi Talkies
in Ahmedabad and had- obtained for that
purpose a licence for sale of tickets which was valid upto December
31. I 960.
On an allegation that through his manager and other
employees he was indulging in sale of tickets contrary to the Bombay
Cinema Rules, 1954 framed under the Bombay Cinema (Regulation)
Act. XX of 1953 a notice dated June 14, 1960 was served upon
him to show cause why the said licence should not be suspended.
On an inquiry having been held by the fast appellant, that officer
passed the impeached order suspending the said li~nce for a period
of two months from the date of service of the oi'der.
But before
the inquiry was completed and the said order passed, the period
for which the licence was issued expired and an order renewing
it for the next year, that in 1961, was passed otr,December 31,
1960. The impugned order was served on the respondent on
March 5, 1961.
AggrieveExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.