WP(C) 5675/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Ms B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Talukdar, lea rned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, by the present petition, is praying for a direction to the respo ndent authority to renew the temporary video cinema license earlier granted to h im on 4.5.2000 under the provision of the Assam Cinema (Regulation) Act. 1953 (i n short the Act) read with the Assam Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition of Films b y Video Cassette Recorder) Rules, 1993 (in short the 1993 Rules), contending int er alia, that though after expiry of the period of the license renewed vide orde r dated 8.9.2004 he applied for renewal of the license but the same has not been renewed by the respondent authority till date. A further prayer has also been made by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to grant fresh license in case further renewal is not permissib le under the law. Ms Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petiti oner filed the applications on 15.9.2009, 11.5.2010, 31.8.2010 and 3.9.2010 for renewal of the license earlier granted to him nothing has been done by the respo ndent authority to renew the license despite payment of the requisite fee for re newal apart from submission of the relevant documents and particulars. It has al so been submitted that in case the petitioner’s license cannot be renewed beyond the period of one year the respondent authority may be directed to issue a fres h license by allowing the petitioner to make fresh application for that purpose. Mr. Talukdar, learned State counsel on instruction has submitted that though the petitioner on 31.8.2010 filed an application for grant of license the same bein g defective, has not been processed. It has also been submitted that under the p rovision of the 1993 Rules a temporary video cinema license granted for six mont hs can be renewed for a further period of six months only and no further extensi on can be granted. According to the learned State counsel since the license init ially granted to the petitioner was once renewed for six months no further renew al of the license can be granted. Mr. Talukdar, however, has submitted that if t he petitioner makes application for grant of fresh license, necessary action wil l be taken on such application in terms of the provision contained in the Act as well as in the 1993 Rules. Rule 14 of the 1993 Rules framed under the Act provides that the licensing autho rity can grant three types of licenses namely; (i) Permanent Video Cinema Licens e, (ii) Temporary Video Cinema License and (iii) Temporary Touring Video Cinema License. Rule 20 of the said Rules provides that license for temporary video cinema can b e granted by the licensing authority with the prior approval of the Govt. in For m ’C’ appended to the rules for a period of not exceeding six months. It also pr ovides that the period of the said license can be extended for a further period of six months by the licensing authority with no further extension. The petitioner was granted with the temporary video cinema license by the licens ing authority on 4.5.2000 on the basis of the approval granted by the Govt. vide communication dated 3.5.2000. The period of the license was for six months. The said period was subsequently extended for another six months by order dated 8.9 .2004. Since the Rule does not provide for further extension after expiry of one year there cannot be further renewal of the said license. The petitioner, if he desire can apply for fresh license. That being the position, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to t he petitioner to make fresh application for grant of license by complying with t he requirements of the Act and the 1993 Rules and in case such application is ma de the licensing authority namely; the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur shall cons ider the same and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to such license shal l seek approval of the Govt. as required under the law and thereafter pass neces sary orders relating to the grant of license. It is needless to say that if the application is found to be defective the petit ioner shall be informed by the licensing authority to remove such defect. The entire exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of filing the application seeking such license. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.