l- IN THE HICTI. C©URT OF JBDieATUREtCHHATTISGARHsBILASPOR (PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE GONSTITOTIGN) OF ICT3IA r.P. Ho.. ^f^L/2001 PETITIOKER 'Shri Raghuveer Touriag TalM.es» Salstt through its present Proprletor Bevendra Slngh Thakar, ^ged about 51 years. S/p Late Chandri.ka Sl^iSlngh TOialcur, R/Os Warfl No.l4, Statioapara.Saktl., District s J'anjglr-Chanipa (Chhattisgarh). Versus RESPOH3ENTS 1.^'Fhe S'tatAaa of Chhattisgarh, ^-^', through the Secretary (Cultural), SscretarAate, DK Bhawan Goverament of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.. 2. The ©.Istrict Hagistrate Cum OMipetent Authorlty (®c<3±se). Janjgir-Champa, Dlstt. sffa'njgir- Chanpa (Chhattlsgarh). 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (•Magistrate) Saktl, Distrlcfi Jan lcrlr-Chamoa /'..^ z^ WRIT PETITIOH ONDER ARTICLES :226/227 OF THE CONSTITBTIOH OF INDTA < ::'L':.-?'1V..-A^. ^TG^T'E^T 1'^'H^T 3?]^I WwS 'CTt^T ^ ^i]illd<<, 'g^ftWTS, fsiini'yy. 6j.p.No- \<fc33ia°D SD^l'SwTW^fe Shri Vishnu Koshtha, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, respondents. Rfl ^ ^S i^^ip. ^T aif^iit sn^i counse! for the iearned counsel for The order impugned was to renew the licence which wasl father of the petitioner. On the writ petitioner died some t( the petitioner. On receipt of t WGS of the view that the licenc^ petitioner and after th.e death stand revoked. Rule 120 of M.P.! ssued by the Coltector, refusin9 learlier granted in favour of the ctjiming to know that the father of icence under >le but s| the benefit only of thle shatl be deemed to be |?e reply thecompetent authority couid not be trcuisferred to the bf the iicensee the iicence should Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972 •hese ruies shall not ^all be personai for person to whom it death of the licensee -evoked." B [TT®va^ ^K3 & sii^r'q?;?; (i^qiy^) 3;;'^7I arl f?;!i^3?i^!'i iFV^ s{^ i STi^i'?R11W :af?a ^ ^T^i^H 'ETTq^f ~^ t^st <^T%K •^ arfigii an^ji K It appears that the an eye to the above in fact an combetent competent authority for gran| petitioner and the sqme is Collector, Janjgir - Chempa. I|" cancellation of the licence earj of the writ petitioner can not i^ it also further appears to me existence for a long time iji petitioner in the name of the Collector should consider the! sympathetically. Further le^ application for grant of licenc^ Law. It is for the comi licence if deemed fit by it. authority has taken oction "|?vision. It is also stated by Shri itation has been made befor®th< of licence in favour of the writ |ier issued in favour of the father ^e assai led successful iy. However, •hat since Cinema Hali has been in fa^our of the famity of ths flather of the writ petitioner, application for grant of licej the Coilector expeditiously in accordance pete^it authority to issue provisionai With the above observatibns, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy be supplie(l as per ruies. -&--—--- ' Sd/- ChiefJusticc GRPRJ—FS/3! 1— 1 /2001 —SO.OOO.