Sangeetha Enterprises Vs. the District Magistrate

.....certificate is not necessary for the purpose of renewal of licence, as sub-clause (iii) of rule 85 had been struck down-held- the respondent district magistrate would not have insisted upon the production of entertainment tax clearance certificate-writ petition is allowed with a direction to consider the application for renewal of licence without reference to tax clearance certificate. - indian contract act (9 of 1872)sections 151 & 152: [k.n.keshavanarayan, j] bailment - clearance of imported good s-liability of customs authorities -pilferage of imported goods in possession of custodian - held, custodian is liable to pay duty of such goods to department. this does not indicate that customs authorities have no control over goods nor it would indicate that customs authorities are not answerable for loss of goods. section 45(3) is to ensure payment of duty payable on goods imported so that there will be no loss to exchequer. reading of entire provision contained in chapter-vii makes it clear that customs authorities exercise complete control over imported goods while in possession of custodian. moment imported goods lands in customs area, since statutorily it has to remain in custody of customs authorities till it is released either for home consumption or for warehousing, there will be a statutory creation of bailment and customs authorities become bailee vis-a-vis importer. - 5. the view we have taken about the scope of the act and the purpose sought to be achieved by it are perfectly in harmony with the view expressed by a full bench of this court in state of karnataka v. ilr1985kar1 .6. since the impugned rule, that is to say, sub-clause (iii) of rule 85 of the rules inserted in the year 1985 is clearly beyond the scope of the act, we have no alternative except to declare it to be illegal and unenforceable......the division bench had struck down sub-clause (iii) of rule 85 of karnataka cinemas (regulation) rules, 1971. in paras-5 and 6 of the aforesaid decision, the division bench had held as hereunder:'5. the view we have taken about the scope of the act and the purpose sought to be achieved by it are perfectly in harmony with the view expressed by a full bench of this court in state of karnataka v. sri laxmi touring talkies and ors. : ilr 1984 kar1192 and subsequently by another division bench in kodanda touring talkies v. state of karnataka and anr. : ilr 1985 kar1 .6. since the impugned rule, that is to say, sub-clause (iii) of rule 85 of the rules inserted in the year 1985 is clearly beyond the scope of the act, we have no alternative except to declare it to be illegal and unenforceable. consequently, we strike down the aforesaid sub-rule.'therefore, i am convinced to say that the respondent-district magistrate would not have insisted upon the production of entertainment tax clearance certificate issued by the competent authority. in view of the said decision, i direct the respondent-district magistrate to consider the application for renewal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. let him do that within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.the writ petition therefore stands allowed in the above terms.the learned government pleader is directed to send the necessary communication to the respondent-district magistrate at the earliest. he is also permitted to file memo of appearance for the respondent-district magistrate within four weeks.