IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NANITAL Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No.140 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.12.2009 Mehendi Hasan ……. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …… Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA Present: Mr.Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioner. J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner claims to be a resident of Mohalla Bhoop Singh, Tehsil and Police Station Jaspur, District-Udham Singh Nagar. It is also the claim of the petitioner, that two cinema halls, namely, Rajesh Talkies and Shakti Talkies have been licensed to operate within the city of Jaspur, and that they have factually been operating as such from the years 1971-72. While the aforesaid two cinema halls were operating, the residents of the city had a place of entertainment. It is, however, pointed out that for some years now both the aforesaid picture halls have been shut down. One of them, namely, Rajesh Talkies, which is owned by respondent No.5 Sri Parag Agarwal is now under demolition. It is further pointed out, that the second cinema hall, namely, Shakti Talkies, which is owned by respondent Nos. 6 & 7 i.e. Sri Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Sri Prabhash Chandra Agarwal is being used as a banquet hall. The aforesaid action at the hands of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 has rendered the two cinema halls 2 unoperational and as such the entertainment facility available to the poor residents of the city is no longer available to them. In order to substantiate his claim that it is imperative for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to continue to exhibit motion pictures at the aforesaid cinema halls, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 18 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. Rule 18 is being extracted hereunder: “No portion of a cinema shall be used as a restaurant, boarding house, shop, factory, workshop of manufactory, or for the purposes of storage of the operation or sale of food, drink, except with the sanction of Licensing Authority and subject to such condition and restrictions as may be imposed and specified by him in this behalf nor shall any portion of the cinema be used for residential purposes by day or night.” We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, not possible for us to exceed to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. First and foremost, it cannot be asserted in the back ground of the factual position noticed above that the two buildings earlier described as Rajesh Talkies and Shakti Talkies, are presently in use as a cinemas. This is because the aforesaid two picture halls are admittedly not screening motion pictures any longer. It is only when a building is used as a cinema, the conditions incorporated in Rule 18 (extracted hereinabove) would be applicable. Since it is the petitioner’s own case that the two cinema halls are not being used for screening motion pictures, we are satisfied that the conditions expressed in Rule 18 are inapplicable. Thus view, we are satisfied that Rule 18 is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Secondly, it would be pertinent to mention that the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of a writ of 3 mandamus as against respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are private individuals. A writ of mandamus is not competent as against private individuals specially when we had concluded herein above that there is no statutory obligation cast against them. No other contention was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons recorded here in above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Chief Justice ( Tarun Agarwala ) Judge 01.12.2009 P.Singh