Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.5/32 of 1986, decided on 6th December, 1986.
---Art.199--Motion Pictures Ordinance (XLIII of 1979), S.13- Cinematograph licence--Petition against grant of temporary permit- Basic and real dispute regarding grant of licence pending before Secretary Information who was empowered to decide same--Interference with order of District Magistrate granting temporary permit was declined by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
Ahmad Tariq for Petitioner.
Shahzad Jahangir for Respondent No. 1.
S.M. Zubair, Asstt. A.-G. for Respondent No.2.
Petitioner has filed the amended writ petition challenging therein the orders of the District Magistrate, Lahore dated 28-10-1986 and 19-11-1986 issuing temporary permit to respondent No.1.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Mehr Ghulam Dastgir Lak, respondent No.1, moved an application before the District Magistrate, Lahore, respondent No.2, for the grant of cinematograph licence on 18-5-1986. Petitioner also joined the proceedings on 28-6-1986, and made a request that he being a co-sharer in the cinema, his name be also included in the licence Petitioner's prayer was resisted by respondent No.1. Matter remained pending before the District Magistrate until 2-11-1986 when he passed an order saying that the file was being transferred to the Secretary, Information Department, Government of the Punjab, for further proceedings and the parties were directed to appear. before the Secretary on 17-11-1986. It appears that the District Magistrate had issued a temporary permit to respondent No. 1 on 28-10-1986 for a period of one month. This action of the District Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner in the .present constitutional petition. Report was called for from the District Magistrate on 19-11-1986. On receipt of the report, it transpired that the District Magistrate has issued another temporary permit to respondent No.1 on 19-11-1986 for one month valid from 28-10-1986 to 27-12-1986.
When the matter came up before this Court on 3-12-1986, learned counsel for the petitioner argued, inter alia, that after the District Magistrate had passed the order, dated 2-11-1986 directing the parties to appear before the Secretary, Information Department, on 17-11-1986, as the matter was being transferred to him, he was left with no jurisdiction to grant another temporary permit on 19-11-1986 particularly when the earlier temporary permit was still valid and operative upto 27-11-1986. Petition was admitted to regular hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepted notice for their clients. Learned counsel for the petitioner however made a request that he wanted to amend the writ petition so as also to challenge specifically the order, dated 19-11-1986 passed by the District Magistrate. He has filed the amended writ petition.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submits on instructions that the Secretary, Information Department, Government of the Punjab, who is empowered to grant the cinematograph licence under section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance would take up and decide the matter of grant of licence in a couple of days. This being so, although all the learned counsel agree that the order passed by the District Magistrate on 19-11-1986 granting temporary permit to respondent No.1 was not proper, I do not consider it necessary to pronounce upon the validity of the impugned order granting temporary permit as the basic and real dispute regarding the grant of licence itself is going to be decided by the Secretary, Information Department. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the parties shall appear before the Secretary, Information Department, Government of the Punjab, on 9-12-1986, on which date he shall dispose of the matter of grant of licence in accordance with law, of course, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
M.Y.H./A-74/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer