STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER versus HARI KRISHAN SHARMA

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 09-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

982 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOIBER 
v. 
HARi KRISHAN SHARMA 
December 9, 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., 
K. N. 
WANCHOO, 
M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, v. 
R.AMASWAMI 
AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, JI.] 
Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act (11 of 
1952) s. 5(2)---Scope of 
Govern1nent's Control. 
A 
B 
The second appellant-the Sub-divisional 
Officer-had been . consti· c 
luted as the licensing autltority, under s. 4 of the Punjab Cinemas (Re· 
gulation) Act, 1952, for the area concerned in the present case. 
The · 
respondent made an application to him for a licence to construct a per. 
manent cinema hall. 
Pending the application, instructions 
were issued 
by the first appellant-the State Government-that all such applications 
for licence shall be forwarded to the State Government for orders accom-
panied with certain particulars regarding the 
applicant. The 
second 
appellant forwarded the respondent's application with the relevant facts 
D 
to the first appellant and the first appellant rejected the application. The 
respondent's appeal to the first appellant under s. 5 (3) of the Act was 
also rejected. The respondent then moved the High Court under Art. 
226 and the High Court held that the first appellant had no authority or 
power to require all applications for 
licences under the Act to be for· 
warded to it and to deal with them itself. 
In appeal to this Court, the firsc appellant contended that it had 
jurisdiction to deal with the application because s. 5(2) of the Act con-
ferred very wide powers of control on it and that the power took within 
its sweep the directions issued by it. 
HELD : The scheme of the Act indicates that there are two autho-
rities which are expected to function under the Act-the licensing autho-
rity as welt as the Stat~ Government. The basic fact in the scheme is 
that ft is the licensing authority which is solely given the power to deal 
with the applications for licence in the first instance, and th.is basic posi· 
tion cannot be changed by the State Government by issuing any execu· 
tive orders or by making rules under s. 9 of the Act. (989 G; 990 B-C] 
The control of the State Government under s. 5(2) snbject to which 
the licensing authority has to function is very wide; 
but however wide 
E 
F 
this control may be, it cannot justify the State Government to completely 
oust the licensing authority and itself usnrp its function~. The licensing 
authority has to act under the control of the State Government, but it is 
G 
the licensing authority which has to act and not the Government itself. 
The said -control can be exercised generally before applications .are grant-
ed by issuing general instructions which are legitimate and reasonable for 
the purpose of the Act, or particularly by correcting 
individual orders 
granting licences if they are found to be erroneous, but in any case the 
State Government has to function either as an appellate authority under 
s. 5 ( 3) or as a revisional authority under s. 5 ( 2), but it cannot assume 
for itself the powers of the licensing authority. [988 H-989 E] 
ff 
Karnatl Rangaiah v. A. Sultan Mohiddin, A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 513, M/s. 
Vishnu Talkies v. The State, [1962) I.L.R. 12 Raj. 14 and Bharat Bhushan. 
v. Cinema and City Magistrate, A.LR. 1956 All. 99, overruled. 
{
., 
i 
""! -
·<t) 
• 
' ' 
• 
PUNJAB v. H. K. SHARMA (Gajendragadkar, C.J.) 
983 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 763 of 
B 
1963. 
Appeal b): special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 30, l 9l\l of the Punjab High Court in Civil Appeal Writ 
No. 1100 of 1959. 
Bishan Narain and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. 
S. N. A ndley, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which arises 
in this appeal relates to the construction of section 5 (2) of the 
Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (No. 11of1952) (here-
inafter called 'the Act') . The respondent, Hari Krishan Sharma, 
who claims to be the owner of a certain site in the town of 
Jhajjar, desired to construct a cinema hall at the said place for 
D 
the purpose of exhibiting cinematographs. 
On December 16, 
1956, he submitted an application to appellant No. 2, the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Jhajjar, for the grant of the licence to construct 
and run a permanent cinema hall on his site. On February 22, 
1957, appellant No. 2 forwarded the said application to the 
Tehsildar for inspection of the site. It appears that on April 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.