Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1259 (MP)

Prashant Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2017-12-13

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the order Annexure P/6 dated 21.11.2017, which is in fact a show cause notice issued by the Collector, District Damoh, this petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. On perusal of the said order it reveals that the application submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short 'Act of 1952') has been rejected and the direction has been issued to the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking renewal of the license as per the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972 (for short 'Rules of 1972'). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the show cause notice Annexure P/6 is issued rejecting the application for renewal of license without affording an opportunity and without any notice. Such rejection is in violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, the notice/order impugned Annexure P/6 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to decide his application Annexure P/5 in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 submits that it is a case wherein the petitioner is running a Movie Magic Cineplex through satellite link. The license for such cineplex may be granted as per the provisions of Act of 1952 as well as Rules of 1972. The petitioner is plying cinema through video cassette recorder which is governed by Madhya Pradesh Cinemad (Exhibition of Film by Video Cassette Recorder) Licensing Rules, 1983 (hereinafter it be called as 'Rules of 1983'). It is urged that on the basis of license of cinematograph to show the films by means of video cassette recorder, the petitioner cannot run his Movie Magic Cineplex by satellite link to show films, however, if petitioner wants to run his cineplex by satellite link he has to apply under the Rules of 1972 and the application submitted by him under the provisions of Rules of 1983 has rightly been rejected. However, in the notice Annexure P/6 liberty has been granted to the petitioner to apply for grant of license under the Rules of 1972, therefore, the order impugned has rightly been passed. However, in the notice Annexure P/6 liberty has been granted to the petitioner to apply for grant of license under the Rules of 1972, therefore, the order impugned has rightly been passed. It is said that the act of the petitioner was found contrary to the provisions of law and the said fact is not disputed even before this Court, however, in case the liberty is granted to him to apply afresh, it would not change the situation on merit, therefore, the plea of violation of principle of natural justice taken by the petitioner is of no substance. 5. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the provision of Act of 1952 the 'cinematograph' has been defined in Section 2(a) which includes any apparatus for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. Section 2(c) defines the 'prescribed' which means prescribed in the rules made under the Act. The Rules of 1972 and the Rules of 1983 both have been framed under the Act of 1952. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1972 defines 'cinema' which means any place wherein an exhibition by means of cinematograph may be done. Rule 2(f) defines the 'license' which can be granted as per Rules of 1972. Thereafter, in Rule 2(ga) the 'multiplex/multi-dimensional amusement centre' have been defined. The Rules of 1983 also defines cinema which means any place wherein a public exhibition of film by means of video cassette recorder/player is given for commercial purpose. In Section 2(e) the video cassette recorder/player has been defined by which the cinematograph for the purpose of giving cinematograph exhibition of recorded film may be shown. Rule 9 and 10 specify the application for cinema license and its grant and renewal of license is in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1983. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid it is apparent that under the Act of 1952 the exhibition by means of cinematograph may be possible in two ways as specified in the Rules of 1972 and the Rules of 1983; one is by satellite link and the other is to show the recorded films through video cassette recorder. The prior is governed by Rules of 1972 while later is governed by Rules of 1983. The prior is governed by Rules of 1972 while later is governed by Rules of 1983. In the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner is showing the movies by means of satellite link in a cinema hall, but he is having the license of showing the films through video cassette recorder to which he has applied for renewal of license which has been rejected vide Annexure P/6 directing him to submit a fresh application as per Rules of 1972. 7. In view of the discussion of the facts and law, in my considered opinion, the impugned order/notice Annexure P/6 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application for renewal of license of cinematograph by satellite link is justified and as per law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application was submitted under the provisions of Act of 1952, however, it cannot be rejected, but the said argument is misplaced particularly when it is not disputed that the cinematograph is shown by the petitioner through satellite link, though he was having the license to show movie by video cassette recorder. The petitioner cannot run the cineplex on the basis of licence given to him to exhibit the cinema by use of video cassette recorder, however, he has to apply for license or its renewal under the provisions of Rules of 1972 and if he is granted the license, he may run the cinema under those rules. If he has applied under the Rules of 1983 for grant of license to exhibit cinematograph by means of video cassette recorder to show the recorded films then on such license exhibition of cinematograph at satellite link is not permissible. As learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any illegality while rejecting the application for renewal of license for running cineplex by satellite link, though he applied for grant of license for running the same by video cassette recorder, however, even on affording an opportunity of hearing to him, he may not make any change in the order on the merit of the decision of the Collector, rejecting the application for renewal of license, therefore, the arguments of not affording an opportunity and violation of principle of natural justice is of no substance. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse as proposed in the show cause notice Annexure P/6.