STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 494 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
V. 
PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2094 of 2008) 
MARCH 25, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ.] 
UP Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 - ss. 7 and 5(3) -
c Grant of licence to construct permanent cinema hall to power 
of attorney holder projecting himself to be the owner - Grant-
in-aid also sanctioned -
Challenge to, on ground of 
misrepresentation - Grant-in-aid set aside and recovery order 
passed - Writ petition allowed by High Court- On appeal held: 
0 High Court misconstrued the nature of dispute - It could not 
have decided as regards the fraud practiced in the writ petition 
- Power to revoke and cancel license is available to the 
Appropriate Authority u/s 7 - Thus, order of High Court set 
aside and matter remitted back to it - Grant-in-aid. 
E 
The respondent's grand father was the original 
owner of a cinema hall which was granted temporary 
permit. He appointed respondent as the power of attorney 
holder. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for 
construction of cinema hall permanently as the owner of 
F the cinema hall. He suppressed the fact that his 
grandfather had expired. The District Judge granted the 
license on the premise that the respondent was the owner 
of the Cinema hall. The grant-in-aid was sanctioned. The 
respondent was issued notice alleging that the 
G permission for operating permanent cinema hall was 
obtained by misrepresenting himself to be owner. The 
respondent was to show cause as to why grant-in-aid and 
application for renewal should not be cancelled. The 
District Magistrate passed an order that the respondent 
H 
494 
(. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. v .. PRAMOD KUMAR 
495 
SHUKLA AND ANR. 
- was not entitled to the grant-in-aid under the Government A 
Order since he had concealed the facts that he was not 
the owner. The recovery order was passed and grant-in-
aid sanctioned was set aside. Respondent filed 
application for renewal of licence which was rejected. 
Respondent then filed writ petition which was allowed. 
B 
·- > 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter, the 
Court 
HELD: The High Court seems to have completely lost c 
sight of the nature of the controversy and the dispute. 
Whether there was any fraud practiced could not have 
been decided in the Writ Petition. Under section 7 of the 
U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955, the power to revoke 
and cancel the license is available to the appropriate D 
" 
authority. It appears that the High Court has not examined 
the question as to what is the effect of the death of the 
appellants' grand father-original owner. It has also not 
examined the acceptability of the claim of respondent that 
he was the owner of the Cinema Hall in which capacity he 
E 
had applied for the permanent licence. These have 
considerable bearing on the subject matter of dispute. The 
High Court has come to an abrupt conclusion without 
analyzing the factual and applicable legal position. Thus, 
the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the 
matter is remitted to it for fresh disposal in accordance 
F 
_, " 
with law. [Para 7] [498-F-H; 499-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2094 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2005 of G 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ 
Petition No. 33291 of 2004. 
1 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 2095 of 2008. 
H 
496 
S.UPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG., Krishnan Venugopal, Ravindra 
B 
Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Kuldip Singh, Dhruv Mehta, 
P.N. Puri, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra 
and Kamlendra Misra for the Appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of 
the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition (Civil Misc. 
Writ Petition No.33291/2004) and holding that no further order 
C need be passed in the connected Writ Petition (Civil 
Misc.W.P.37610/2004) in view of the order of the former case. 
3. Challenge in the first writ petition was to the order passed 
by the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 2.8.2004 holding 
.. 
D that respondent-Pramod Kumar Shukla had received grant in 
aid to the tune of Rs.21,27,551.13 between 2.4.1990to1.4.1995 
,, 
under Government Order dated 21.7.1986 by concealing facts 
and by practicing fraud. It was pointed out tha

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