Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2737/2013 of Harish Malhotra Vs District Magistrate Haridwar AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2013

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2737 of 2013 Harish Malhotra … Petitioner Vs District Magistrate, Haridwar & another … Respondents Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioner Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional C.S.C., present for the

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2737 of 2013

Harish Malhotra

… Petitioner

Vs

District Magistrate, Haridwar & another … Respondents Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioner Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional C.S.C., present for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the Court is taken on record.

2. The petitioner is a Cable Television Operator. He is aggrieved by an order dated 27.12.2013 by which he has been asked to stop his Cable business from the premises where he was actually run.

3.

3. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was granted a licence to run Cable Television Network under the Uttar Pradesh Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). However, the petitioner shifted his Control Room from Lajwanti Bhawan Bhimgoda, Haridwar to Khadkhadi near Sugandha Hotel, Haridwar for which no permission was taken by the petitioner. Now the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate under the powers vested under Section 15(2) of the Act whereby the petitioner’s Cable Operation has been stopped with immediate effect. Section 15(2) of the Act reads as under:- “15 Suspension or revocation of licence of permission for entertainment

(1) …….

(2) No order to revoke or suspend any permission or licence shall be made under sub-section (1) without giving the holder of the licence or permission a reasonable opportunity of being heard:

Provided that where the District Magistrate or the Commissioner is of the opinion that the object of the action proposed to be taken would be defeated by the delay, he may, while or after communicating to the holder of the licence or permission the grounds on which the action is proposed, pass an interim order suspending the permission or licence in the meantime.”

4. The case of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing of the above order. Although the Act provides in a given contingency to pass order without giving an opportunity of hearing under the proviso, but it is only to suspend the licence. However, the petitioner contends that he was asked to stop the operation, therefore, it is in violation of Section 15(2) of the Act. Mr. Tripathi, Additional C.S.C. for the State on the other hand contends that no permission was given to the petitioner to run his Cable Television Network from the new place, as he has no such permission to run such cable network from that place. Consequently, the operation being done by the petitioner at the new transferred place was illegal right from the very beginning. Therefore, the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act are not attracted in the present case.

5. The petitioner on the other hand contends that because of the impugned order he is having huge loss on daily basis and subscribers, which are at present 127 in numbers, who are slowly trickling away and seeking cable connections elsewhere. He submits that now it is a question of his livelihood.

5. In view of the above facts, no interference is made in the present writ petition, as the “shifting” of his area of operation was unauthorized, as it was done without authority of law. However, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case, the petitioner moves an application before the District Magistrate (as to an authority having charge of District Magistrate), to run his control room at the new transferred place, the same shall be considered by the District Magistrate, Haridwar who shall pass orders on the same, in accordance with law, within 48 hours from the date of receipt of such application along with the copy of this order. In case, no order are passed by the District Magistrate or any other Officer-in-charge they shall consider granting a temporary permission to the petitioner to operate control room. This is being passed in view of the fact that the petitioner is running a Cable Television Network and his credentials and documents are already available with the concerned authority as the matter presently pertains only to shifting of place. Moreover it also involves his livelihood.

6. Let a copy of this order be supplied today to the parties on the payment of usual charges.

31.12.2013 Aswal

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead