STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus RAJA RAM JAISWAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 29-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

"'-
. 
\. 
\ 
to2i 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
RAJA RAM JAISWAL AND ANR. 
April 29, 1985 
[D. A. DBSAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.], 
Constitution of India 1950, Artide 226 Writ of Mondamus-lssuance of-
To statutory "authority under Q licensing statute to grant a licencC-Whether per· 
missible. 
U.P. Cinema <Regulation) Act, 1955, sections 3 and 5 & U.P. Cinemato-
graph Rules 1951Rules3 and 7. 
Licence for location and construction of Cinema under Rule 3-Licence for 
exhibition of films 
in cine1na building under section 3-Grant of-Determination 
of'public intere.~t'-Stages of consideration-Explained. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Administrative Law Licensing powers-Indisputable adjunct of controlled 
econo1ny-Exercise in oppressive or arbitrary manner-Avoidance of-Vigilance 
E 
by courts-Necessity of. 
Construction of Cinema theatre-Grant of licence-Objection of Hindi 
Sahitya Somme/an-Refusal of Licence-Whether justified. 
The respondent desired to construct a cinema theatre on a plot of land. 
He submitted an application under Rate 3 of tho. U.P. Cinematograpb Rules 
1951 to the District Magistrate. for obtaining a certificate signifying his appro-
Val of the site selected for constructing a permanent building to be used for 
cinematograpb exhibition. The District Magistrate as the licensing Authority 
issued a public notice specifying the request of the respondent for grant of a 
certificate and calling objections. An organisation called the Hindi Sahitya 
Sammelan alone submitted its objection, The District Magistrate referred the 
application of the respondent to the State Government, which directed the Dis-
trict Magistrate to carefully examine the matter. The District Magistrate was 
of the opinion that the Sammelan can neither be styled as an edllcational insti-
tution nor a residential institution with~n the contemplation of Rule 7(2)(b) be-
cause it was an institution wedded to and working for the propagation of Hindi 
language, and even though it may provide some research facility on its campus, 
it has no regular programme of class teaching, and that having regard to all the 
F 
G 
II 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
l022 
SUPREME CUORT REPORtS 
(1985] 3 s.c.R.. 
relevant circumstances, the construction of a cinema building at the proposed 
site was not against public interest. On the contrary, it was held that a modern 
beautiful fully air-conditioned cinema building apart from adding to the beauti-
fication of the city would enrich the coffers of the State exchequer in 1he form 
of entertainment tax. The District Magistrate granted the certificate informed 
the respondent that construction of a cinema hou.se and be completed within 
two years from the date of the issuance of the order. Chagrined by the grant of 
the certificate, the Sammelan initiated action for acquisition of the plot over 
which the cinema building was being constructed, should uoder the Land Acqui-
sition Act. The respondent successfully assailed the acquisition order in the 
High Court. 
In the meantime as the period of two years specified in the certificate 
issued under Rule 3 was about to expire, the respondent moved an application 
for extension of time for completion of the construction of cinema building, and 
during the pendency of this application, the building was completed. 
The respondent made an application under section 3 of the U.P. Cinema 
(Regulation) Act, 1955 for a licence to exhibit films in the cinema building. The 
District Magistrate refused to grant the licence. The respondent preferred an 
appeal under Sec. 5(3) of the 1955 Act to the State GOvernment, which allowed 
the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Magistrate with a dire.:tion to 
re-examine the grounds on which he had refused to grant licence to run the 
cinema in accordance with the rules and pass suitable and legal order after 
giving an opportunity of hearing. 
Against the aforesaid order of remand the respondent filed a Writ Peti-
tion in the High Court. A Division Bench held that even thoug_h the order 
under challenge was one of remand, as the respondent has journeyed to and fro 
on numerous occassions, it was necessary to dispose of the petiiion on merits, 
and held that while granting a certificate under Rule 3 of the 1951 Rules, it was 
open to the licensing authority to take into consideration whether it would be in 
public interest to grant the necessary certificate or to refuse the same, but after 
the grant of certificate when a fulftedged cine!J1a b

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