Gujarat High Court
K News Channel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/10231/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10231 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
K NEWS CHANNEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAHUL SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
MR SAHIL B. TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 13/06/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Trivedi,
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent
No.1.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following prayers.
"8. B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
writ, order or direction to quash and set aside
the impugned Order dated 04.06.2022, of
Respondent No. 2 cancelling the license issued to
Respondent No. 2;
C) Pending the disposal of this petition, stay
the operation of the impugned Order dated
04.06.2022, in the interest of justice."
C/SCA/10231/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2022
3. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma, appearing for the
petitioners has placed reliance on Section 8 of the Gujarat
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 2004, (for short, "the Act"). Section
8 of the Act, reads as under.
"8. In the event of any contravention by the
holder of a licence of any of the provisions of
this Act or the rules made thereunder or of any
of the conditions or restrictions upon or subject
to which the licence has been granted to him
under this Act or of any of the conditions or
restrictions imposed. by an order of exemption
made under section 13, or in the event of his
conviction of an offence under section 7 of this
Act or section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952,
the licensing authority may revoke the licence or
suspend it for such , period as it may think tit:
Provided that no licence shall be revoked or
suspended unless the holder thereof has been
given reasonable opportunity to show cause"
4. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma, appearing for the
petitioners has further submitted that the impugned order is
absolutely silent with regard to violation of any of the
conditions of the licence, which has been granted to the
petitioners by the order dated 20.11.2019 and subsequently,
extended till 19.11.2022. He has submitted that as per Section
8 of the Act, before revoking the licence or suspending the
same, the holder thereof has to be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to show cause, which in the present case is
missing. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on
the following decisions in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd., Vs. CG Power and Industrial
Solutions Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 383, in the case of U.P.
State Spinning Co. Ltd., Vs. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005) 8
SCC 264, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and
others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 and in the
C/SCA/10231/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2022
case of ITC Ltd., and another Vs. Union of India judgment dated
02.11.1982 passed in C.M. No.4020 of 1982 in C.W. 2925 of
1982 (Delhi High Court) and has submitted that the writ
petition is maintainable though the petitioner has the remedy
to file an appeal.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Trivedi, is not
in position to dispute that the impugned order cancelling or
revoking the licence granted to the petitioners has been
passed without issuing any show cause notice.
6. This Court has perused the impugned order, it appears
that the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad while cancelling the
licence of the present petitioners has placed reliance on the
registration of FIR for the offences mentioned therein for
revoking the licence. The said order does not anywhere reflect
that any of the conditions mentioned in the order dated
20.11.2019 granting licence to the present petitioner has been
violated. A close reading of Section 8 of the Act, provides that
there has to be a conviction of offence under Section 7 of the
Act or Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which result
in cancelling or revoking the licence or any violations of
conditions of licence. Thus, there appears to be total non-
application of mind by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad,
while passing the impugned order.
7. This Court is conscious about the alternative remedy
available to the petitioners under the Act, more particularly,
Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case
of Radha Kirshan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Paresh and
others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334, has summarized the
C/SCA/10231/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2022
principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the
High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. The Apex
Court has observed thus:-
"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution
to issue writs can be exercised not only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other
purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to
entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions
placed on the power of the High Court is where an
effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy
arise where
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part
III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of
natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest
the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though
ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by
law."
8. The case of the petitioners will fall under Exception (b) of
the aforesaid principles. Thus, in view of the blatant violation
of the principles of natural justice and the failure to adhere to
the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, this Court is inclined to
set aside the impugned order.
9. With the above-noted reasons and observations, this
petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.06.2022
C/SCA/10231/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2022
passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is hereby
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the District
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, to decide the same afresh, after
following the provisions of the Act. Rule is made absolute.
Direct Service is permitted.
sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MAHESH BHATI/01
