Dismissed

Jatinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2017CWP/18670/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a cinema hall license due to alleged violations of the Cinematograph Act and Rules. The judge held that the petitioner failed to establish locus standi and could not prove the alleged infractions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed due to failure to establish locus standi and failure to rebut respondent's stand.

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab etc. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

C.M. No.2276 of 2017 and -1CWP No.18670 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.M. No.2276 of 2017 and CWP No.18670 of 2014 Date of Decision.01.05.2017

¶4

Jatinder Singh ........Petitioner

¶5

Vs State of Punjab and others ........Respondents

¶6

Present: Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Abhilaksha Grover, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶8

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

-.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶11

C.M. No.2276 of 2017

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 18.01.2017 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶13

Application is allowed.

¶14

CWP No.18670 of 2014

¶15

The petitioner, who is stated to be a frequent cinema goer, has filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the licence conditions dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2-District Magistratecum-Licensing Authority in favour of respondent No.3-M/s DFP Enterprises Limited, Nawanshahr for exhibition of films through video cassettes recorders/players in complete violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Rules framed therein and also seeking issuance of writ in the PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.05.05 11:37 nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to immediately withdraw the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

C.M. No.2276 of 2017 and -2CWP No.18670 of 2014

¶17

licence on the ground that there has been violation of aforementioned conditions. In this regard, a representation dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure P- 2) was submitted to the District Magistrate, Nawanshahr but no action has been taken so far. The photographs (Annexures P-3 and P-4) showing the seating capacity in red and blue audi show that the exceeded seating capacity has been used. Moreover, as per Rule 16 of the aforementioned Rules in addition to system of entrance, passage, corridor, seat rows etc. at least there should be an open space of not less than 10' in width and an open space of 20' on the 3^rd side of parking of vehicle, thus, the cinema hall is running in complete violation of provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Rules framed therein.

¶18

The stand of the State in the aforementioned case is with regard to locus standi of the petitioner, much less, non-receipt of any alleged representation dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure P-2). All the NOCs have been taken by respondent No.3.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. It is the stand of the respondents that all the requisite NOCs required under Punjab Exhibition of Films on VCR (Regulations) Rules, 1989, which had been obtained vide letter dated 18.07.2014, much less, from PWD (B&R) and Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division. No representation dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure P-2) has ever been made or received. Section 19 of the Punjab Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Player (Regulations) Rules, 1989 also provides an alternative remedy.

¶20

In my view, the petitioner has not been able to establish the PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.05.05 11:37 locus standi. It is a case of blackmailing and an act of aggrandizement with I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

C.M. No.2276 of 2017 and -3CWP No.18670 of 2014

¶22

a motive to harass respondent No.3 so that he succumbs to the pressure of the petitioner. The petitioner has miserably failed to rebut the stand of the respondents, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be vindicated. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶23

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 01, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.05.05 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jatinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Gulzar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neha Chadha Vs Union of India etc.

M/S Guru Teg Bahadur Rice Mills Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravinder Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Phuman Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sofat Vs State of Punjab & Ors.