Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 148 (UTT)

GULSHAN KUMAR GHAI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-04-01

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 22nd March, 2014, passed by the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking the permission / licence to provide cable service in Rudrapur town, District Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2014, reveals that on the application of the petitioner seeking licence to provide cable connection in the Rudrapur City, a report was called from the Police Station, Rudrapur. Police Station, Rudrapur submitted one report to the effect that tension is prevailing between the petitioner and Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Banarsi Das Chawla for the cable network business and both the parties were challaned under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.PC. Learned District Magistrate was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner only on the ground since there was apprehension of breach of peace between the petitioner and another Cable Operator Vinod Kumar, therefore, grant of licence to the petitioner would not be desirable. 3. As per Section 5 of the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, no entertainment on which tax is leviable, whether exempted from the liability to pay tax or not, shall be provided without prior permission of District Magistrate in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. 4. Undisputedly, cable network falls within the definition of entertainment. Therefore, to run the cable television network, a permission / licence is required under Section 5 of the Act. Rule 3 of U.P. Cable Television Network (Exhibition) Rules, 1997 reads as under :- “Permission to provide Cable Service.- (1) No person shall provide cable service without prior permission of the District Magistrate. (2) Any person who desires to provide cable service under the act may apply to the District Magistrate for permission to provide such service. (3) Application under sub-rule (2) shall be given in Form-1. (4) On receipt of the application the District Magistrate shall satisfy himself that the applicant has furnished all the requisite information and on being so satisfied, grant to the applicant such permission in Form 2 for a period of three financial years at a time: Provided that the District Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant refuse to grant the permission. (5) The District Magistrate shall, as far as may be, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the application, pass an order under sub-rule (4) ” 6. Perusal of Rule 3 of the Rules would go to demonstrate that an application obtaining licence to run cable television network shall be moved in Form 1 of the Rules furnishing all the requisite information as mentioned in Form 1 and if all the requisite informations are furnished, then District Magistrate shall grant licence initially for a period of three financial years at a time. If requisite information is not furnished then for such reasons, District Magistrate may refuse to grant licence. 7. Section 15 of the of the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 reads as under :- “Suspension or revocation of licence or permission for entertainment. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner, may, by order, revoke, or suspend by way of punishment for a period not exceeding three months, any permission or licence granted for an entertainment under any other law for the time being in force if he is satisfied that the proprietor has, - (a) admitted any person to any place of entertainment without [payment of tax], or (b) failed to pay the tax due from him within the time prescribed, or (c) fraudulently evaded the payment of any tax due under this Act, or (d) obstructed any officer in carrying out inspection, search or seizure of records, or (e) failed to produce the records required for inspection by any officer carrying out an inspection under this Act, or (f) contravened any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder or any order or direction issued under any such provision : Provided that where either of the aforesaid officers has commenced a proceeding under this sub-section the other of them shall have no jurisdiction to proceed subsequently in respect of the same matter and any such subsequent proceedings, if commenced, shall be of no effect and shall be dropped.” 8. As per Section 15 of the Act, licnece so granted can be revoked or suspended by the District Magistrate or Commissioner on the ground as mentioned in Clause (a) to (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. As per Section 15 of the Act, licnece so granted can be revoked or suspended by the District Magistrate or Commissioner on the ground as mentioned in Clause (a) to (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. If Section 5, Clause (a) to (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules are read together, the only result would be cable television network may be provided after obtaining licence in Form 2 of the Rules from the District Magistrate. However, if either of the conditions as mentioned in Clause (a) to (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act is present or requisite information as mentioned in Form 1 of the Rules is not furnished, then, of course, District Magistrate may refuse to grant licence or may revoke or suspend the licence already granted. 9. In my considered opinion, if all the requisite informations as mentioned in Form 1 of the Rules are provided and none of the conditions of Clause (a) to (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act exists, District Magistrate shall not refuse grant of the licence. The purpose of the licence under the Act is to collect tax and to regulate the business of cable network connection. Since none of the ground as mentioned in Clause (a) to 5 (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act has been given in the impugned order nor impugned order says any requisite information as mentioned in Form 1 is missing, therefore, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law. It seems that learned District Magistrate has refused to grant licence on the ground which is unknown to the law as discussed hereinbefore. Therefore, order impugned is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions as discussed hereinbefore. 10. Consequently, Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is hereby quashed. Learned District Magistrate is directed to take decision afresh on the application of the petitioner within 30 days positively from the date copy of this order is placed before the learned District Magistrate. 8. CLMA No. 2934 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.