Dismissed

Navin Ku.Pathak v. Collector,Puri

Orissa HC11 Nov 2021WP(C)/646/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Orissa set aside an order refusing renewal of a Class 'B' cinematograph licence. The Court directed the Licensing Authority to reconsider the application, noting that the earlier refusal was dependent on a civil dispute which was not a bar under the rules, and restored the matter for fresh consideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; renewal application restored to Licensing Authority for reconsideration with communication of decision within two months.

Navin Ku.Pathak Vs Collector,Puri — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.646 of 2016 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Navin Kumar Pathak

Petitioner

Mr.S.S.Rao. Advocate

-versus-

Collector, Puri & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.P.C.Panda, Addl. Govt. Advocate (For O.P.Nos.1 & 2) Mr.P.K.Jena (For O.P.Nos.3 to 7)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER 11.11.2021

Order No.

23.

Mr. Rao, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who wants renewal of cinematograph licence. He submits, the licence was granted for three years and expired on 31^st March, 2015. On 28^th August, 2015, there was order made in Cinematograph Appeal no.1 of 2015, whereunder order dated 27^th March, 2015 passed by the Collector was not interfered with. The Collector by said order refused further renewal of licence until civil dispute is over and final disposal of OJC no.1221 of 2001.

¶15

He relies on section 3 in Orissa Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 and rule 18 in Orissa Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1964. He submits, his client had three years’ licence and had applied prior to its expiry. Thus, there was compliance with section 5. Procedure under rule 18 must be followed for

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

purpose of renewal of licence. Mr.Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of private opposite parties and submits, there is long pending civil dispute and there is apprehension of breach of peace because the cinema hall stands on property, which petitioner is wrongfully holding and seeking to run cinema hall. He is also making unauthorized construction. As such, there should be no interference with order of appeal. He submits further, his clients have filed writ petition challenging finding by Member Board of Revenue that the land stands vested. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of State and also opposes the petition. He relies on clauses (i) and (ii) in sub-rule (1) rule 8 to submit, for purpose of renewal too, these clauses apply. He submits, the land is vested to the government. Petitioner not being owner of the land, there is no case for renewal.

¶19

It is admitted that licence issued was for a period of three years. That makes the licence, class ‘B’ licence under sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) in rule 6. Sub rule (2) in rule 9 provides for the application of renewal to be accompanied by copies of the certificates of inspection last conducted by the Public Works Department etc. Sub rule (3) says, Licensing Authority may, if necessary, obtain further certificate of verification from inspecting authorities. Rule 12 provides for inspection.

¶20

The Licensing Authority will reconsider the renewal application of petitioner in light of record of submissions and observations made above. If the application of petitioner satisfies the requirement in section 5, for purpose of grant of

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

new licence, then renewal should be granted. Otherwise, a fresh order is to be passed refusing the renewal and communicated to petitioner in accordance with rules. It is to be noted that rule 10 provides for communication of the decision within one month beyond expiry of licence. That is not applicable here. Hence, communication is to be made within two months from date of communication of this order, allowing for inspection in the meantime, if directed by Licensing Authority. Impugned orders are set aside and the renewal application restored to the Licensing Authority.

¶24

RKS

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Navin Ku.Pathak v. Collector,Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navin Ku.Pathak v. Collector,Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Keshari Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Manas Ranjan Sahoo Vs Ao, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs Udayanath Rout

Sanjukta Behera Vs Union of India

Lalit Narayan Das Vs Union of India

Suvasis Nanda Vs Union of India