IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17037 of 2008 Brij Nandan Bhagat, S/o Late Baiju Bhagat, resident of village- Mohanganj, P.S.-Tarapur, District-Munger, Propreietor of Mrs. Bhagwati Chitra Mandir, Tarapar, Munger. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Deputy Secretary cum Director of the Government Nagar Vikas and Awas Department, Bihar. 2. District Magistrate cum Cinema Magistrate, Munger. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Tarapur, Munger. 4. Sri Satendra Kumar Sinha, Assistant Electric Engineer, Tarpaur, Munger. ……Respondents. ----------- 02. 22.04.2009 Petitioner had a temporary license for exhibiting cinematograph films duly granted by the Licensing Authority- cum-District Magistrate, Munger for a period of one year in terms of Rule 13(b) of the Bihar Cinema Regulation Rule, 1974 by his order dated 14.05.2008 issued under Letter No. 1122/G which was approved by the State Government. The petitioner’s license has now been cancelled by order as communicated to him as contained in Memo No. 2627 dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure-1). The only ground on which the license has been cancelled is that No Objection Certificate from the Electrical Inspector which was earlier granted was valid up to 17.09.2008 and thereafter the petitioner has not filed a renewed certificate. The petitioner draws attention of this court to Annexure-6, certificate granted by the Electrical - 2 - Inspector, Bihar dated 30.09.2008 (Annexure-6). In that certificate it has been mentioned that petitioner’s premises was inspected by the Electrical Inspector on 05.09.2008 and this certificate has been sent directly to the District Magistrate, Munger with a copy granted to the petitioner. In my view, petitioner rightly submits that he could only make an application for renewal and/or grant of fresh certificate to statutory authority but has no power to force them to grant the same within any specified time. The petitioner at this stage having already applied in that regard, the Electrical Inspector already having conducted inspection on 05.09.2008 much before expiry of validity of his earlier certificate, the petitioner can not be made to suffer merely because the order was communicated to the Cinema Licensing Authority belatedly. In my view, the only obligation on the cinema owner is that he has to file application for grant of certificate within time and if such an application is made and the authority does not act in pursuant thereto the petitioner can not be penalized. It is so because it is beyond petitioner’s reach to force the statutory authority to act in a particular manner or in a particular time. Thus found the petitioner’s license was wrongly temporarily suspended and petitioner wrongly - 3 - restrained from exhibiting cinema. I may herein also note that the petitioner having been forced to stop exhibiting cinema for lack of technical compliance not only the petitioner suffers loss but the State also suffers loss. I am sure that the Licensing Authority is aware that entertainment tax is payable when entertainment is provided by cinema owners. If on such grounds cinema halls are shut down then there be no entertainment. The entertainment tax is not payable or collectable. The State Licensing Authority should keep this point in mind before exercising power mechanically. Even otherwise I would like to observe that before such an order was passed at least petitioner could have been noticed which is the minimal requirement of principle of natural justice. Had the petitioner been noticed he would have immediately informed that inspection has already done by the Electrical Inspector and the certificate would be issued in due course. That would have saved the petitioner’s cinema hall from being closed as also loss of the revenue. The order impugned by the counter-affidavit is again sought to be justified on some other grounds, Firstly such a justification can not be looked into because it is well settled when action is based on particular ground as apparent from an - 4 - order publicly made then it can only be supported by material as stated and can not be supported by other materials or other facts not found in that order. Further the other grounds that are stated in the counter-affidavit are allegedly theft of electricity and non- payment of electricity bills. In my view for theft of electricity or recovery of electricity dues there are adequate provisions under the new Electricity Act which does not delegate any such authority to the Cinema Licensing Magistrate or the Cinema Licensing Authority. They can not appoint themselves collecting agent for this independent statutory authority. The statutory role of each authority is well defined and they must keep themselves within their own limits. Considering the aforesaid, the writ application is allowed. The order by which the exhibition of films have been suspended as contained in Annexure-1, as aforesaid is set aside. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)