IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 226 of 2010 Harish Malhotra S/O Late Manohar Lal Malhotra, Proprietor Haridwar Cable T.V.Network, Control Room at A-37 Sharda Nagar, Jwalapur, Haridwar, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. District Magistrate Haridwar, District Haridwar, 2. District Entertainment Tax Officer, Haridwar, District Haridwar. … Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date April 13, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18-2-2010 (Annexuire-5 to the petition) passed by respondent no. 1 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to grant the licence for transmitting private channels as per law and order dated 29-8-2006 passed by the High Court. According to the petitioner, petitioner applied for obtaining licence for running private channel and prayed that he is ready to complete all the formalities in that regard as also to pay the fees and other taxes. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application has been rejected by order dated 18-2-2010 by the respondent no. 1 ignoring the judgment dated 29-8-2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 375 (M/S) of 2006, Maxmode Cable Television Network through its proprietor Nadeem Khan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. 2 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit the averments made in paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition have not been specifically controverted. In paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has indicated that similar controversy was involved in Writ Petition No. 375 of 2006, which stood resolved by order dated 29-8-2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. I have perused the judgment dated 29-8-2006. In paragraph no. 3, the Division Bench has inter alia held that “the petitioner shall apply for the licence and shall deposit the licence fee and other taxes under the Uttaranchal Act within a period of 15 days from today. However, it is made clear that in case of failure of compliance of the aforesaid order, the aforesaid order passed by this Court shall stand revoked.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to comply with the directions as contained in paragraph no. 3 of the order dated 29-8-2006 and that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 29-8-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is no question of violation of other conditions for grant of licence as envisaged by Rule 11(1) and 11(2) of the U.P. Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules, 1988. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to apply for licence and shall deposit the licence fee and other taxes under the Uttaranchal Act within a period of 15 days from today. Subject to above, the petitioner is permitted to run the video channel also. However, it is made clear that in case of failure to comply the aforesaid direction, this order shall stand revoked. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3