Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusPRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 405
- Decided
- 25 March 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court erred in deciding the fraud issue in the writ petition; the power to revoke the licence rests with the appropriate authority under Section 7 of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, and the matter must be reconsidered.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the grant of a permanent cinema licence and a government grant-in-aid to Pramod Kumar Shukla, who had applied as the owner of a cinema hall while actually being a power‑of‑attorney for the deceased original owner. The District Magistrate cancelled the grant‑in‑aid and ordered recovery on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, a decision that was set aside by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had misconstrued the nature of the dispute, as the question of fraud and ownership could not be decided in a writ petition and the power to revoke the licence lies with the appropriate authority under Section 7 of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act. The Court observed that the High Court failed to consider the effect of the original owner’s death and the claimant’s ownership claim, both of which are material to the dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court could decide the alleged fraud and misrepresentation in a writ petition.
- Whether the appropriate authority under Section 7 of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955, has the power to revoke and cancel the cinema licence.
- What is the legal effect of the death of the original owner on the ownership claim made by the applicant.
- Whether the grant‑in‑aid obtained by the respondent should be set aside and recovered.
Subjects
cinema licencefraudmisrepresentationrevocationgrant-in-aidpower of attorneyownership disputeadministrative law
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 494
A STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
V.
PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2094 of 2008)
MARCH 25, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH (.
PANTA, JJ.]
UP Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 - ss. 7 and 5(3) -
c Grant of licence to construct permanent cinema hall to power
of attorney holder projecting himself to be the owner - Grant-
in-aid also sanctioned - Challenge to, on ground of
misrepresentation - Grant-in-aid set aside and recovery order
passed - Writ petition allowed by High Court- On appeal held:
High Court misconstrued the nature of dispute - It could not
0
have decided as regards the fraud practiced in the writ petition
- Power to revoke and cancel license is available to the
Appropriate Authority u/s 7 - Thus, order of High Court set
aside and matter remitted back to it - Grant-in-aid.
E The respondent's grand father was the original
owner of a cinema hall which was granted temporary
permit. He appointed respondent as the power of attorney
holder. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for
construction of cinema hall permanently as the owner of
F the cinema hall. He suppressed the fact that his
grandfather had expired. The District Judge granted the
license on the premise that the respondent was the owner
of the Cinema hall. The grant-in-aid was sanctioned. The
respondent was issued notice alleging that the
G permission for operating permanent cinema hall was
obtained by misrepresenting himself to be owner. The
respondent was to show cause as to why grant-in-aid and
application for renewal should not be cancelled. The
District Magistrate passed an order that the respondent
H 494
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. v.. PRAMOD KUMAR 495
- SHUKLA AND ANR.
was not entitled to the grant-in-aid under the Government A
Order since he had concealed the facts that he was not
the owner. The recovery order was passed and grant-in-
aid sanctioned was set aside. Respondent filed
application for renewal of licence which was rejected.
Respondent then filed writ petition which was allowed. B
·- > Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter, the
Court
HELD: The High Court seems to have completely lost c
sight of the nature of the controversy and the dispute.
Whether there was any fraud practiced could not have
been decided in the Writ Petition. Under section 7 of the
U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955, the power to revoke
and cancel the license is available to the appropriate
D
authority. It appears that the High Court has not examined
" the question as to what is the effect of the death of the
appellants' grand father-original owner. It has also not
examined the acceptability of the claim of respondent that
he was the owner of the Cinema Hall in which capacity he
had applied for the permanent licence. These have E
considerable bearing on the subject matter of dispute. The
High Court has come to an abrupt conclusion without
analyzing the factual and applicable legal position. Thus,
the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the
matter is remitted to it for fresh disposal in accordance F
_, with law. [Para 7] [498-F-H; 499-A-B]
"
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2094 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2005 of G
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 33291 of 2004.
1
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 2095 of 2008. H
496 S.UPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 5 S.C.R.
A Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG., Krishnan Venugopal, Ravindra
..
Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Kuldip Singh, Dhruv Mehta,
P.N. Puri, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra
and Kamlendra Misra for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of
the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition (Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.33291/2004) and holding that no further order
C need be passed in the connected Writ Petition (Civil
Misc.W.P.37610/2004) in view of the order of the former case.
3. Challenge in the first writ petition was to the order passed
by the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 2.8.2004 holding
D that respondent-Pramod Kumar Shukla had received grant in
aid to the tune of Rs.21,27,551.13 between 2.4.1990to1.4.1995 ,,
under Government Order dated 21.7.1986 by concealing facts
and by practicing fraud. It was pointed out that he had concealed
the fact that he was not the owner and was not, therefore, entitled
to receive the grant in aid. Therefore, in exercise of powers
E conferred under Section 5(3) of the U.P. Cinema Regulation
Act, 1955 (in short the 'Cinema Act') order of recovery was given
and grant in aid sanctioned to him vide office order No.299
dated 10.4.1990 was set aside. Application for renewal dated
1.7.1994 submitted by said Pramod Kumar Shukla was rejected
F in exercise of powers conferred under Section 21 of the U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short 'General Clauses Act'). r
Further order was passed under Section 12(1) of the U.P.
Entertainment Tax Act, 1979 (in short 'Entertainment Act')
directing him to deposit the amount of entertainment tax collected
G by such cheating and fraud during 2.4.1990 and 1.4.1995
amounting to Rs.21,27,551.13.
4. Background facts which are almost undisputed run as ,
follows:
H Respondent-Pramod Kumar Shukla is the son of Shri
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. v. PRAMOD KUMAR 497
SHUKLA AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,,.,,
Satya Prakash Shukla who is ~he appellant in appeal arising A
out of SLP (C) No.11752/2006. A Cinema Hall named "Girija
Chitralaya" was granted temporary permit for six months.
Undisputedly, on 10.11.1986 the original owner Shri Girija
Shankar Shukla had executed a Power of Attorney appointing
.his grandson Pramod Kumar Shukla as the Power of Attorney B
-; holder. The said Power of Attorney was executed on 10.11.1986
and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Farukkhabad on
14.11.1986. On 31.10.1988 permission was granted to construct
a permanent cinema hall. Pramod kumar Shukla had made an
application on 6.9.1988 suppressirig the fact that Girija Shankar c
Shukla had expired on 31.3.1987. In the application filed,
Pramod Kumar Shukla described himself as the owner of
Cinema Hall and indicated in the application that he was running
a temporary cinema hall and wanted to construct a permanent
cinema building on the concerned plot of land. Interestingly, he
D
"t
did not apply as a Power of Attorney holder but stated that he
was the owner. Permission was granted on certain conditions
by the District Magistrate, Allahabad.
It is the stand of the appellants that Pramod Kumar Shukla
falsely represented himself as the owner and the licence was E
granted on the premises that Pramod Kumar Shukla was the
owner of the Cinema Hall. His father Satya Prakash Shukla
made a representation and, therefore, there was no renewal of
the licence which operated from 30.3.1990 to 31.3.1993 both
days inclusive. A show cause notice was issued on 19.6.2004 F
alleging that the permission granted for operating the permanent
?'.
Cinema Hall was obtained by suppressing the factual position
by Pramod Kumar Shukl~ mis-representing himself to be the
owner. Notice was given to show cause as to why the amount of
grant in aid which was obtained by fraud and by concealing the
G
facts shall not be recovered under Section 12(1) of the
Entertainment Act and the grant in aid sanctioned by order
) No.299 dated 10.4.90 should not be cancelled and the
application for renewal of licence should not be rejected.
In grant in aid order dated 10.4.1990, Pramod Kumar H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A Shukla was indicated to be the licensee. The order passed by
the District Magistrate was challenged in the Writ Petitions. The
High Court after referring to the factual scenario came to hold
that the order was passed without applying mind and with undue
haste. It was noted that the authorities should have taken
B appropriate legal help to understand how far such executive
authority can go to determine the issue. It was not a case of
fraud between an individual and the State by which the revenue
exchequer would suffer but was a dispute between the father
and the son and without ascertaining the position either by Civil
C Court having appropriate jurisdiction in respect of right, title and
interest of the property and accounts or by Criminal Court as
regards proof of fraud and determination in respect of forgery
taking help of appropriate mechanism, the order impugned was
passed which was illegal.
D 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the High Court completely mis-construed the nature of the
dispute. It lost sight of the fact that Pramod Kumar Shukla had
fraudulently projected himself to be the owner which admittedly
he was not. The fact that the executor of the Power of Attorney
E had died in 1987 much before the application for renewal and/
or application for permanent Cinema Hall was filed was not
disputed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Pramod Kumar
Shukla on the other hand supported the judgment of the High
F Court stating that in a case of this nature the Collector should
not have passed the impugned order. His claim was that there
was a family settlement and certain documents executed by his
father Satya Prakash Shukla clearly established that he was
the owner of the Cinema Hall.
G
7. The High Court seems to have completely lost sight of
the nature of the controversy and the dispute. Whether there
was any fraud practiced could not have been decided in the
Writ Petition. Under Section 7 of the Cinema Act the power to
H revoke and cancel the license is available to the appropriate
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. v. PRAMOD KUMAR 499
SHUKLA AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
authority. It appears that the High Court has not examined the A
question as to what is the effect of Girija' death. It has also not
examined the acceptability of the claim of Pramod kumar Shukla
that he was the owner of the Cinema Hall in which capacity he
had applied for the permanent licence. These have considerable
bearing on the subject matter of dispute. The High Court has B
-· come to an abrupt conclusion without analyzing the factual and
applicable legal position. That being so, we set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for
fresh disposal in accordance with law. We request the High Court
to dispose of the matter within 4 months from today. c
8. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no
order as to costs.
N.J. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "cinema licence"Sign in to search