Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 794 (PAT)

Prabhat Ranjan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-01

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The present application is by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents and in particular to the respondent-Collector to grant provisional/temporary licence for exhibiting cinemas as contemplated under the provisions of Bihar Cinema Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder and on basis of the approval granted by the State Government, which approval was granted on basis of recommendation of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate himself. 3. The facts are not in dispute. State has filed a counter affidavit. 4. Having heard the parties I am of the view that there is no difficulty in issuing the aforesaid writ. It is not disputed that the petitioner had completed all formalities which were required of him by law for grant of provisional/temporary cinema exhibition licence. The same having been completed, temporary licence was duly issued on recommendation of the Collector with the approval of the State Government for a short period of three months. Then the petitioner applied for grant of temporary licence for a period of one year. The petitioner was asked to take clearance certificates from the Building Construction Department and the Fire Department though in law he was not required to obtain those certificates rather it was the job of the Government to get the same on payment of fee only by the petitioner. The petitioner complied those conditions. All papers were ready. It need not be emphasised to establish even in a small cinema substantial investment has to be made. It cannot lay idle. The petitioner, therefore, was pursuing the matter at the district level. It is now alleged in the counter affidavit that on 11.5.2005 the petitioner was apprehended in the Collector office allegedly with a letter that a general circular issued by the State Government to all the Cinema Magistrates to ensure unauthorised and uncensored films be not displayed in unauthorised manner. On this basis alleging that a Government letter was found in possession of the petitioner which was an unauthorised action. 5. An FIR on that date itself was lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested. Having been taken into custody by the police in the Collectorate itself, however, on 17.5.05 the Collector ultimately recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of temporary licence for a period of one year (see the contents of Annexure C, letter dated 11.9.2005 to the counter affidavit). Having been taken into custody by the police in the Collectorate itself, however, on 17.5.05 the Collector ultimately recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of temporary licence for a period of one year (see the contents of Annexure C, letter dated 11.9.2005 to the counter affidavit). On the recommendation of the Collector by letter dated 17.5.05 the State Government granted approval by letter dated 21.7.05 and the same was duly received in the office of the Collector. Notwithstanding the receipt of approval pursuant to recommendation of the Collector himself when again there was a delay the petitioner filed this writ application on 6.9.05 and it is now that the Collector suddenly decided to take a U turn in the matter by letter as contained in Annexure C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector. He informs the State Government that by letter dated 17.5.05 he had recommended the case to the State Government for grant of temporary licence and the same had been approved by the State Government by letter dated 21.7.05 but on 11.5.05 the petitioner was found taking away a Government circular dated 5.5.2005 for which a criminal case was instituted on 11.5.05. Apparently the respondent-Collector forgot that 11.5.05 was a date, six days prior to his recommendation and not later. In view of the aforesaid case which was lodged prior to his recommendation he purported to withdraw his recommendation which had already been accepted and approved and thus has tried to justify the action of non grant of temporary licence. By this subsequent letter, after the writ petition was filed and long after four months after his recommendation on the face of it this court finds that the action of the Collector is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot be sustained by this court. Once the Collector had made recommendation, which recommendation was accepted and approved, communicated by the State then the Collector had no option but to act on the same. He cannot review his decision and that too on his own self said standard. The Collector is unable to explain as to why when he got approval of the State Government in July, 2005 itself he sat over the matter for over one and a half month and only acted for withdrawing his recommendation after the writ petition had been filed. Unfortunately this action cannot be anything but arbitrary. The Collector is unable to explain as to why when he got approval of the State Government in July, 2005 itself he sat over the matter for over one and a half month and only acted for withdrawing his recommendation after the writ petition had been filed. Unfortunately this action cannot be anything but arbitrary. Further if lodging of criminal case against the petitioner was a ground then it is not understandable as to how after that recommendation, favoured to him, was made and even the recommendation having been made why it was not retrograded immediately. The Collector slept over the matter for four months, got the approval from the State Government and then moved to withdraw his very recommendation on which approval was granted. This speaks of volume as regards the conduct of the Collector. 6. The Collector of the district has not only been delegated power of the State Government but he is a public officer. He is a statutory authority under the Bihar Cinema Regulation Act and Rules framed thereunder. The law and Constitution enshrined of every officer to act fairly and in non-arbitrary manner. Here the facts, as noticed above, clearly show that the petitioner having made substantial investment could not get his licence granted because of undue lethargic attitude of the State. As investment lay unutilised, the district authorities were least bothered. The petitioner naturally may attempt to find out the things. Unfortunately at that time the Right to Information Act and its provisions were not known to the petitioner. The very letter for which he is being prosecuted, he could have, as a matter of right, demanded and the State was bound to supply. No privilege could be pleaded in respect thereof. It did not affect the integrity and security of the country. In such a event it cannot be ruled out that the entire steps taken by the district administration was arbitrary on the face of it and suffer from malice in law. I am, therefore, left with no option but to quash the letter of District Magistrate dated 11.9.05, as contained in Annexure C to the counter affidavit and direct issuance a writ in the writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate to grant temporary licence, which has been approved by the State Government. I am, therefore, left with no option but to quash the letter of District Magistrate dated 11.9.05, as contained in Annexure C to the counter affidavit and direct issuance a writ in the writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate to grant temporary licence, which has been approved by the State Government. The temporary licence should be granted within one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.