ORDER
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. The petitioner was the objector before the District Magistrate, Khar-gone (respondent No. 2) against the grant of permission to respondent No. 1 to exhibit films through VCR in diverted land SN 316 area Order 129 hectares situated in Kasba Kasravad Bujurg. The objections were overruled and change of place was allowed by respondent No. 2 by order dated 25-1-1994 (Annexure N). This order is under challenge in this petition.
2. Facts in brief are that earlier licence was granted on the basis of relevant rules framed under the M.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1952 on 18-4-1991 {Annexure A) to exhibit films in the house of one Pannalal Patidar for the period ending on 31-12-1991. Thereafter on 15-11-1991 a show cause notice (Annexure B) was issued to suspend the license on the ground of unauthorised alteration of place of exhibition i.e. the place, just 70/80 ft. away from New Nimar Talkies. The respondent No. I accepted the fault on 28-12-1991 (Annexure C) and prayed for condonation of lapse. Yet the respondent No. 2 cancelled the license on 11-1-1993 (Annxure D), on violation of rules as also terms and condition. The representation (Annexure E) dated 22-2-1993 against cancellation was also rejected. By order dated 29-6-1993 (Annexure F) the license was granted till 31-12-1993 on the same terms and conditions i.e. for exhibition in the house of Pannalal Patidar. Just after 4 days i.e. on 3-7-1993 the repsondent No. 1 applied (Annexure G) for permission of change to the place which had
become the basis for cancellation of license earlier. The petitioner preferred objections (Annexure H) on 12-7-1993 against the application of 3-7-1993 (Annexure G). The S.D.O. PWD (respondent No. 3) and Chief Medical and Health Officer (respondent No. 4) submitted enquiry report on 8-7-1993 (Annexure (1) and report (Annexure J) respectively recommending grant of permission for change of place as claimed. To the same effect is recommendation of S.D.M. (respondent No. 5) as is reflected by Annexure K of 11-8-1993. The report of spot inspection dated 10-9-1993 is Annexure L. The respondent No. 5 in his report dated 14-9-1993 (Annexure M) did not agree with the objections but recommended grant of opportunity to the petitioner objector before passing any order on the application of respondent No. 1. After hearing the petitioner permission was accorded which is impugned in this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order as contained in Annexure A is arbitrary and illegal. He questions the validity in the face of earlier cancellation (Annexure D) and rejection of representation (Annexure E). He hints at elvish design in application (Annexure G) moved within such a short span of 4 days since grant of license (Annexure F) restricting it to the house. He contends that objections have been rejected on the irrelevant consideration of competitive spirit. The order, it is urged, is vitiated by non-application of mind and non-consideration of earlier background as chronicled above.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposes the petition on the ground that petitioner-objector has no locus standi to impugn the permission. He further submits that the hearing of objections was permissible under Rules of 1972 but not under Rules of 1983. It is thus submitted that petitioner was wrongly heard by respondent No. 2.
5. The learned Government Advocate offered no special comments.
6. In this exercise, it is overlooked that the petitioner is exhibitor of films in the talkies situated in the vicinity of the altered place and has thus vital interest to see that his business suffered no disturbance and interference that authorities acted fairly.
7.The core questions are that if “all was well” then why license was cancelled and representation was rejected and why license was renewed for exhibition in the house only just 4 days prior to the application? And to cap it all how permission to alter the place could be given on 25-1-1994 in respect of a license which stood expired on 31-12-1993? The order is conspicuously silent on these vital questions and no light is shed on these aspects. The respondent No. 2 as licensing authority, has discretion to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but the exercise of power should seem to be sound.
8. The discretion, as held by Lord Mansfield in classic terms in John Wilkes’ Case (1770) 4 Bur 2527 has to be sound, guided by law and governed by rules. In the instant case, it is not found to be fault-free as noted above and is ex facie unsound and arbitrary.
9. In the peculiar facts, I held that the petitioner has locus standi to assail the grant of license or permission for change of place and, irrespective of rules, hearing was not forbidden or impermissible. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 did not raise such objections before the respondent No. 2.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the order dated 25-1-1994 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure N) is vitiated and cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly set aside.
11. This is, however, not the end of the matter. The respondent No. 1 is granted liberty to apply for fresh grant of license to the respondent No. 2. On receipt of such appli-cation the respondent No. 2 shall consider the same and decide it in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observations as made above.
12. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as fetter on the power of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 is granted liberty to pursue his cause, as may be permissible under the law.
13. This petition, thus, stands allowed in
terms indicated above but without any order as to costs.