1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1994/2008 (Vijay Kumar Vs. Divisional Commissioner & Ors.) Date of order : 27.03.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. S.L. Jain, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure-12) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner affirming the order dated 2.1.2007 (Annexure-11) passed by District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. Further, it is prayed that the application dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure-1) filed by the petitioner for reduction of the seats with effect from 1.4.2005 may kindly be allowed as prayed therein. According to the facts of the case, M/s. 2 Ganesh Talkies, Industrial Area, Sri Ganganagar was exhibiting films in the city of Sri Ganganagar as the interest of cinema viewers has reduced in the modern era and the public are viewing the films at their houses. Therefore, the petitioner could not bear the loss being suffered by it and consequently it was closed down and it remained closed for near about 10 to 11 years. The petitioner purchased a theater and huge investment in its renovation was made by providing the facilities like air-condition, wall to wall carpets and other facilities like wound system, canteen, acqua-guards for drinking water ets. After re- furnishing the threater, the petitioner started the theater with 500 seats on 9.7.2004 but the theater could not attract the public and consequently, the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs. The petitioner moved an application on 28.2.2005 before the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, for reduction of seats as well as allowing him to increase the rate of tickets. The District Magistrae, being the licensing authority vide order dated 24.3.2005 allowed the application whereby rate of the tickets was allowed to be increased w.e.f. 1.4.2005 to the tune of 15%. According to the petitioner, he wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration(), Commercial Taxes 3 Department, Sri Ganganagar for renewal of the composition of entertainment tax from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 under the Scheme for Composition of the Entertainment Tax, 2003. The petitioner wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar that in his application earlier he has prayed for reducing seats from 500 to 400 and so also made request for increase of rate of tickets but his request for reducing the number of seats from 500 to 350 is not decided and if decided the copy of the order may be supplied to him. Upon this request, the District Magistrate vide its letter dated 17.5.2005 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that due to reduction of number of seats, the income of the Government will be reduced which is being charged as entertainment tax. Against the said order passed by District Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 3 (3) of the Rajasthan Cinema Regulation Act, 1952 and Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Cinema Regulation Rules, 1952. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate to decide afresh considering the development which took place during the pendency of the appeal and keeping in view of the decision of Hon'ble High court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vrandawan Chalchitra Grah & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeals Nos. 26, 27, 30 and 4 46 of 2002 decided on 19.9.2002. Upon remand, the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar passed an order whereby the said authority has reduced the seats from 500 to 400 w.e.f. 2.1.2007 – the date on which the said order was passed. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2.1.2007 to the extent of reducing seats from from 2.1.2007 instead of 1.4.2005 – the date on which the first application was filed by the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner vide impugned order dated 24.1.2008 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that earlier the petitioner moved an application for reduction of the seats and increase of rate of tickets at that time the rates were increased w.e.f. 1.4.2005 but now the order has been passed on 2.1.2007 reducing the number of seats from 500 to 400 and petitioner himself has interpreted the order in his own manner and the order dated 2.1.2007 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of deciding his claim for reducing the seats from 500 to 350, the order was to be made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2005 because he has filed an application for relief with effect from that date. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.1.2007 to the extent of 5 applicability of the order with effect from the date of order and claiming that this order would be made effective w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 24.1.2008 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner is non speaking order wherein no reasons have been assigned as to how the petitioner is not entitled to reduction of the seats w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the order of the District Magistrate is also non speaking order whereby the seats were reduced from 500 to 400 from the date of passing of said order which is 2.1.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the said reduction of seats was to be allowed w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and not from the date of passing order by the District Magistrate which is 2.1.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in case of Graphite India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Durgapur Projects Ltd. and Ors., reported in JT 1999 (6) SC 317 and 2008 SC (Weekly) 1342 and prayed that the orders passed by the authorities for denial of the claim of the petitioner for reducing the seats from 500 to 400 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 is totally erroneous because it is without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this 6 Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Vrandawan Chalchitra Grah & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeals Nos. 26, 27, 30 and 46 of 2002 decided on 19.9.2002. According to the petitioner, the order passed by District Magistrate as well as Divisional Commissioner may be made applicable for reducing the seats from 500 to 400 w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to understand how the petitioner can claim relief with regard to treating seats to be reduced w.e.f. 1.4.2005, When his matter itself was adjudicated on 2.1.2007, then obviously, he will be entitled for the fruits of the said order from the date of order. Further upon a pointed query made during the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner does not point any express provision in the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1952 for granting relief retrospectively. When there is no express provision for granting relief retrospectively from the date of filing of application, then, there was no occasion for the District Magistrate or the Divisional Commissioner to grant such relief to the petitioner, which is not expressly provided under the provisions of law. Likewise, in my opinion, the theory of relate back will not apply in this case because admittedly, the case of the petitioner was finally adjudicated for the 7 purpose of reducing seats from 500 to 400 on 2.1.2007, therefore, obviously, the entitlement of the petitioner for reducing the seats came into existence on the said date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim his right on the basis of theory of relate back. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is not speaking order for claim of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2005 is also not tenable because according to the settled principle of law when competent authority is adjudicating any matter then consequence of the said adjudication is required to be given from the date of order and not from the date of filing of application. It is made clear that such order can be made by the authorities concerned if such provision is provided in the Act or the Rules. For illustration, for the purpose of granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the maintenance is required to be allowed from the date of filing of application to the applicant. But here in this case, the petitioner has accepted the increase of rate of tickets and pursued the business till adjudication of the matter for reducing seats and thereafter, when order was passed for reducing the seats from 500 to 400 on 2.1.2007 then for the purpose of not paying any Sales Tax for the business carried out w.e.f. 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, the petitioner is claiming that while passing order by the District Magistrate on 2.1.2007, the relief was to 8 be given w.e.f. 1.4.2005 on the ground that he has filed an application for reducing the seats on 28.2.2005. I have perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. These judgments are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The claim of the petitioner is totally baseless and contrary to law. Therefore, no interference is required in the order passed by District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 2.1.2007 as well as the order passed by Divisional Commissioner dated 24.1.2008. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun