IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17923 of 2008 Raj Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Baidnath Yadav, Resident of Village- Mominpur, P.S.- Sakari, District- Madhubani. ……. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Urban Development and House Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Urban Development and House Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Darbhanga. 5. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 6. The District Cinema Officer, Madhubani. 7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Madhubani. 8. The Block Development Officer, Pandaul, District-Madhubani. ……. Respondents. ----------- Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh. Mr. Manoj Kumar. Advocate for the State : SC-1. ------------ 03 25.03.2009 How licensing powers are abused in this State by supposedly responsible officers is clearly exemplified by this case? The reason for abuse cannot be discussed in these judicial proceedings. Petitioner investing substantial money constructed a Cinema Hall with a permanent building. In terms of Section 13 (a) of the Bihar Cinema Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder and with requisites certificates from the Fire Department, Police Department, Building Department and the Electricity Department made an application for grant of licence. Though, under Section 13 (a) the District Magistrate, who is the licensing authority, has the authority to grant licence for a period not exceeding one year, for reasons which this Court cannot discuss, the licence was granted only for a period of three - 2 - months, meaning thereby that after every three months the petitioner had to knock the door of the District Magistrate again and again. This went on from 2002 till the State Government directed the District Magistrate to renew the licence under Section 13 (a) for a period of one year at a time. Now the problem starts. The licence was thus renewed under directions of the State Government by the letter dated 25.06.2005 (Annexure-4) for one year. The petitioner then vide his letter dated 01.07.2006 while annexing all certificates from all concerned departments i.e. the Building Department, the Electricity Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department and the Sub-divisional Magistrate made an application to the Collector and this time requested that a permanent licence may be granted (Annexure-5). The consequence of this application would have been that once now the licence was granted as a permanent Cinema Hall, the licence statutorily had to be for a period of three years. Thus, it would be seen that earlier it was every three months that the petitioner had to approach the District Magistrate, which got to increase one year and now was likely to increase to three years. The Collector sat over the matter. What happened then is regrettable. As per Annexure-6, the report of the Block Development Officer, on 23.10.2006 telephonically the District Magistrate orders the Block Development Officer, Pandaul to raid the Cinema Hall and seal it. The order was obeyed. The Cinema Hall was sealed and an F.I.R. was lodged for running the Cinema Hall without valid licence. Unfortunately, petitioner could do little. The - 3 - petitioner again appraised the Collector-cum-District Magistrate vide his letter dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure-7), that his application for renewal and grant of licence was pending still his premises were raided and Cinema Hall sealed. He requested the Collector to recommend to the State Government his case for grant of permanent licence. Again the Collector slept. Now, it is interesting to note that on 02.01.2007 the District Magistrate pointed out the fact of the previous renewal makes a recommendation to the State Government for approval to renew the licence for a period of one year. This is evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. This is after, at the instance of District Magistrate the Cinema Hall had been sealed and prosecution lodged. In this letter, it is also admitted that the Cinema Hall owner has already received all requisite recommendations and certificates from all statutory authorities. Let it be noted that these recommendations and certifications filed by the petitioner on 01.07.2006, long before the Cinema Hall was sealed. Thus, making the said recommendation, the Collector then again sleeps. He does not even order the unsealing of the Cinema Hall. In the mean time, the criminal case instituted against the Cinema Hall owner for violation of terms of licence, the Court, after trial, acquits him. Now, petitioner, on 04.06.2008, makes an application to the Collector again pointing out that he has been acquitted of the criminal case and he was a previous licensee but for last two years the Cinema Hall remain sealed, as such, he be granted requisite Cinema Hall licence. Again, the Collector did nothing. Petitioner was then forced to move the State Government. State Government then vide its letter dated - 4 - 04.08.2008 (Annexure-9) to the Collector pointed out that the petitioner had been acquitted, as such, kindly unseal the Cinema Hall and kindly send recommendation for granting temporary licence to the petitioner. This is replied to by the Collector by the impugned order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-10). The Collector points out that previously, petitioner was licensed. Then on finding that it was operating the Cinema Hall, after expiry of last renewal, a criminal case had been instituted against him. Operating Cinema Hall without a licence was a criminal offence. As such for violation of terms of licence, the licence had not been renewed for last two years and the premises remain closed, in such a situation, there could be no recommendation of renewal of the licence presumably as the licence had expired without renewal. He declines the request of the State Government though at the same time notices that all necessary certificates have been filed. The effect is that now the Cinema Hall owner is left with no option but to demolish the Cinema Hall, because as per the Collector he can never be given a licence. This Court in the earlier order had noted its intention to refer the matter to the Cabinet Vigilance for enquiry against appropriate authority. The reason for this was that by this mindless abusive exercise of statutory power not only has the District Magistrate caused immense loss to the petitioner he has deliberately caused loss to the State exchequer running into lacs of entertainment tax. Had he not taken super technical view of the matter having already found that the petitioner had all necessary certificates and recommendations permitted - 5 - the running of Cinema Hall then not only it would have provided income to the owner, it would have provided employment to the several people and revenue to the State, which revenue the State is deprived of. In fairness to the Licensing Authority, the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Madhubani the Court must notice his defenses in his counter affidavit. He firstly relies on a recent circular dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), to justify is actions of the past which is not at all tenable for the reason that firstly the circular came years after his action and secondly in his entire counter affidavit he has not mentioned about a single short coming or deficiency in petitioner’s Hall or papers. He thus had no reason not to act. Then he gives no explanation as to why he did not immediately recommend the grant of licence when petitioner reapplied on 01.07.2006. He never communicated anything to the petitioner, instead got the Cinema Hall sealed and FIR lodged against the petitioner. Then again to the State Government noticing that petitioner had submitted all certificates and recommendations for grant of licence, yet expressed his inability to recommend on a perverse ground that licence having expired and not renewed for two years, thereafter no recommendation could be sent to State Government for approval. Thus, rejecting the request of the State Government itself. In substance the right of petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was thrown to winds for some undisclosed reason putting the onus wrongly on the petitioner to show and prove this - 6 - entitlement rather than point out a singly deficiency in petitioners applications. A most shocking and regrettable stand of a supposedly responsible officer exercising statutory powers. I say no more and restrain myself from referring the matter to the State Cabinet Vigilance Cell for criminal investigation and institution of case under the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 for malafidely causing loss to the State exchequer. I, therefore, set aside Annexure-10 and direct the State Government and the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority to forthwith grant licence to the petitioner as a permanent Cinema Hall, if the legal requirements of certifications and recommendations are complete. The same shall be scrutinized and necessary orders passed within one month from today. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)