Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 656 (RAJ)

Shiva Video Parlours v. State of Rajashtan

2006-02-24

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2006
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor as well as the leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of non-petitioners. 2. Byway of filing the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 08.06.2005 and 02.09.2005 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana under Section 133, CrPC. 3. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners has produced before this Court two affidavits of Adbul Sattar S/o Adbul Rehman, proprietor of Asha Video Parlour, Rawla Mandi,.Gharsana and Satpal S/o Hansraj, proprietor of Shiva Video Parlour, Rawla Mandi, Gharsana, mentioning therein that at the time of issuance of licence, they both have deposited the security bond of Rs. 10,000/-under the provisions of Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957. It has also been mentioned in both the affidavits that Gram Panchayat, 8 PSD Rawla Mandi, District Sri Ganganagar, has also issued NOC in their favour and licence was issued to them by the concerned authorities after inspection and examining the facilities provided by them. It has also been mentioned in Para-5 of the affidavits that parlour is having proper air facility, for which four ceiling fans and one exhaust fan is also lying there because the parlour is situated in a basement, for siting arrangements, it is mentioned that plastic chairs are fixed and in case of any emergency, there is proper arrangements; a separate toilet along with a bathroon with light facility has also been provided. Certain photographs have also been produced along with the affidavits. Both the affidavits along with the photographs are taken on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners does not dispute this position. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners States that all the required facilities are available, therefore, it is not a case of public nuisance. It is also contended that only to harass the petitioners, the proceedings under Section 133, CrPC, were initiated against them. 6. I have perused the impugned orders as well as both the affidavits filed before this Court. In view of the contents mentioned in both the affidavits that now all the facilities are available, both the orders dated 08.06.2005 and 02.09.2005 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana are set aside. However, it is open for the State authorities to take appropriate action, if any contravention is made by the petitioners violating the conditions mentioned in the licence. 7. In view of the contents mentioned in both the affidavits that now all the facilities are available, both the orders dated 08.06.2005 and 02.09.2005 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana are set aside. However, it is open for the State authorities to take appropriate action, if any contravention is made by the petitioners violating the conditions mentioned in the licence. 7. Accordingly, the misc, petition stands disposed of.