1 Court No. - 27 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 1245 of 2004 Petitioner :- Manendra Singh (Recovery) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Spl.Secy. Entertainment & 3 Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
1. Heard Shri Om Chandra holding brief of Shri Vinod Kumar
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned
Standing counsel and perused the records.
2. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order passed in
pursuance to Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Chalchitra Adhiniyam
1979 (in short hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’).
3. In brief, the petitioner, who is the owner of Raj Touring Video
Fakharpur, was granted licence to run touring video for the period
commencing from 14.1.2003 to 13.7.2003. According to terms and
condition of the licence granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was
only entitled to show the cinema on temporary structure and not in
permanent talkies. However, during the course of inspection done by
the Inspector on 2.2.2003 followed by 12.7.2003 then again on
14.7.2003 it was found that the petitioner was running cinema in a
permanent cinema hall namely Priya Talkies. After inspection a report
was submitted to the District Magistrate who in turn issued a notice
dated 1.8.2003, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the
writ petition. The District Magistrate while serving a notice
2
specifically mentioned therein that during the course of inspection the
petitioner was found running a picture/cinema in the Priya Talkies
whose license was cancelled long back.
4. In defence, petitioner had admitted that licence of Priya Talkies
was cancelled long back and it was belonging to petitioner’s father.
However, petitioner had denied the fact that he was running the
cinema in the Priya Talkies. After considering the reply submitted by
the petitioner, District Magistrate arrived to the conclusion that
running of cinema in a picture hall having permanent structure
violates the terms and condition of the licence. The petitioner was
held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 23,500/- as entertainment tax and
Rs. 20,000/- penalty.
5. While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Priya Talkies was closed long back hence,
there was no occasion to run the picture in the said talkies by the
petitioner.
6. It has also been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the
Entertainment Tax Inspector after spot inspection has given a report
that the petitioner is running the cinema in accordance with the terms
and condition provided for the purpose. At no stretch of time, the
inspector had given a report that petitioner is running the cinema in
the permanent constructed picture hall.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems
to be misconceived. In the present case, allegation is based on three
surprise inspection done by the Inspector. Even if during the course
3
of regular inspection the petitioner was found running the cinema in
accordance to terms and conditions provided for the purpose but when
surprise inspection was done he was found to running the cinema in
breach of licence.
8. Nothing has been brought on record to establish that the report
submitted by the Inspector during the course of surprise inspection
was false or it was submitted for ulterior motive. In the absence of any
adverse material, the report of surprise inspection dated 2.3.2003,
12.7.2003 followed by 14.7.2003, District Magistrate does not seem to
be acted in derogation of law. The decision taken by the District
Magistrate in pursuance to report of the Inspector does not seem to
suffer from any impropriety or illegality. However, so far as penalty
imposed by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order
is concerned it seems to be excessive. Penalty and entertainment tax
imposed by the District Magistrate seems to be almost same.
Accordingly, we are of the view that penalty may be reduced up to
Rs.10,000/-.
9. Subject to aforesaid modification, writ petition is dismissed and
petitioner is permitted to pay the entire dues to the tune of Rs. 33500/-
within a period of one month from today. In the event of default of
payment, the amount shall be recovered in accordance with law. In
case, petitioner has already deposited certain amount, it shall be
adjusted from the amount aforesaid.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010
Madhu