ORDER
1. In Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 352 of 1956, the petitioner, Lahiri Prasad, has applied to the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order of the District Magistrate of Patna, dated the 8th April, 1956, granting authority to opposite party No. 4, Bachoo Narain Singh, to take up permanent construction of cinema buildings in accordance with a revised Plan. The order of the District Magistrate, which is impugned in this case, is in the following terms :
“Sub-grant of cinema license to Shankar Talkies Mokameh.
You are hereby authorised to take up the permanent construction of the cinema buildings in accordance with the revised Plan received with letter dated nil and endorsed by the Executive-Engineer, Patna Division, Patna on 28-7-55.
Sd./- K. Singh
8-4-56.
District Magistrate, Patna.
Memo. No. 3170 dated 10-4-56.
Copy forwarded to the Sub-divisional Officer Barh for information.
Sd./ K. Singh
8-4-56.
District Magistrate, Patna.
Memo. No. 3170 dated 10-4-56.
Copy forwarded to Shri Lakhi Prasad. Mokameh for information. The objection filed by him against the grant of a permanent license to Shri Bachu Narain pd. Singh has been rejected by Govt.
Sd./- K. Singh
8-4-56.
District Magistrate, Patna.”
It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party No. 4 had applied for the grant of a permanent license to the District Magistrate On the 26th August, 1952. On the 2nd of March, 1954, the District Magistrate reported that the building was not suitable. On the 9th September. 1955, the petitioner, Lakhi Prasad, filed an objection to the grant of a permanent licence to opposite party No. 4. The objection was rejected by the District Magistrate on 8-4-1956, and on the same date the District Magistrate granted authority to opposite party No. 4 to take up the permanent construction of cinema buildings in accordance with a revised plan.
2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that no reasons have been given by the District Magistrate for rejecting the objection made by the petitioner or for granting a permanent licence to opposite party No. 4 in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of Bihar Act, XV of 1954. Section 5 of Bihar Act XV of 1954 states:
“5. Restrictions on powers of licensing authority-
(1) The licensing authority shall not grant a licence under this Act, unless it is satisfied that-
(a) the rales made under this Act Have been substantially complied with; and
(b) adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which the licence is to be given, to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibitions therein.
(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and to the control of the State Government, the licensing authority may grant licences under this Act to such persons as that authority thinks fit and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine.” We do not think that the argument addressed by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has any substance. The letter of the District Magistrate dated 8-4-1956, does not purport to grant a permanent licence to opposite party No. 4 in terms of Section 5 of Bihar Act. XV of 1954.
On the contrary the District Magistrate merely authorised the opposite party No. 4 to take up permanent construction of the cinema buildings in accordance with a revised plan submitted by opposite party. No. 4 and endorsed by the Executive Engineer, Patna Division, on 28-7-1955. We do not wish to go into the question whether the District Magistrate should have given reasons had he granted a permanent licence to opposite party No. 4 for running a cinema show. It is sufficient merely to state that the order which the petitioner
challenges in this case is not an order granting a permanent licence to opposite party No. 4, and the provisions of Section 5 Bihar Act, XV of 1954 have, therefore, no application.
3. For these reasons we hold that there is no illegality vitiating the order of the District Magistrate and there is no ground for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of the District Magistrate. There is no merit in this application which must be dismissed.
4. In Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 395 of 1956 the petitioner has made an application for grant of a writ to quash the order of the District Magistrate granting a temporary licence to opposite party No. 4, Bachoo Narain Singh, for running a cinema show. The order which is challenged in this case is in the following terms:
“Government of Bihar.
Political (Police) Department.
No. I/C2-1060/55 PP-2599.
Patna, the 14th April, 1956.
From
Additional Under Secretary to Government.
To
The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
Sub: Grant of cinema licence of Shankar Talkies of Mokameh.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No. 1943/G dated 4-4-56 and to say that Government have been pleased to allow the District Magistrate under Rule 43 of the Cinema Rules to renew the temporary licence of Shri Bachoo Prasad Singh for a maximum period of one year with effect from 11-3-56.
Yours faithfully,
Sd. Illegible.
Addl. Under Secretary to Govt.
Memo No. I/C-2-1060/55 PP 2599.
Patna, the 14th April, 1956.
Copy forwarded to the District Magistrate, Patna, for information and necessary action.
Sd–Illegible.
Additional Under Secretary to Govt.
Memo, No. 3320 dated 19-4-56.
Copy forwarded to the Sub-Divisional officer, Earh, Superintendent, Commercial Taxes, Proprietor Shankar Talkies, Mokameh, for information and necessary action.
The licensee is hereby directed to produce the original licence for extending the validity of the license accordingly.
Sd-Illeg.. 18-4-56.
District Magistrate, Patna.”
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the District Magistrate is not legally valid for two reasons. In the first place, it was submitted that Rule 43 referred to in the Government letter does not exist in view of the fact that Section 11 of Bihar Act XV of 1954 has repealed Central Act II of 1918. Rule 43 was made by the State Government under Section 8(2) (a) and (c) oi’ the Cinematograph Act, 1918. The argument submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that when the Act has been repealed, the rules made thereunder by the State Government have no longer any existence. We do not accept this argument as correct.
It is true that Section 11 of Bihar Act XV of 1954 has repealed the Cinematograph Act of 1918 in its application to the State of Bihar, but the rules made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 8(2) (a) and (c) of the Cinematograph Act of 1918 continue to have legal existence and validity because of the provisions of Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act. (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1917), which is in the following terms:
“27. Where any enactment is repealed and reenacted by a Bihar and Orissa Act (or Bihar Act), with or without modification then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, by-law or form, made or issued under the repealed enactment, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, bylaw or form, made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.”
It is, therefore, open to the State Government to direct the District Magistrate under R. 43 to grant a renewal to the petitioner of his licence beyond the period exceeding six months. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this point must, therefore, be rejected. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government itself was not competent to make an order of renewal of the temporary licence beyond a period exceeding six months though the State Government could direct the District Magistrate to extend the period of the temporary licence beyond the prescribed period.
There is no substance in this argument because the letter of the State Government, dated 14-4-1956, merely states that the District Magistrate would under B. 43 of the Cinematograph Rules renew the temporary licence of Shri Bachoo Prasad Singh for a maximum period of one year with effect from the 11th March 1956. We, therefore, see no illegality in the order of the State Government or in the order of the District Magistrate extending the validity of the license for one year with effect from the llth March, 1956, in accordance with the Government orders.
6. For all these reasons we hold that there is no merit in this application which must be dismissed with costs. There will be a consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 100/- for both the cases. The hearing fee will be distributed equally between opposite parties 1 to 3 on the one hand and opposite party No. 4 on the other hand.