Vazeer Vs. the District Magistrate

Vazeer vs The District Magistrate

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Jun 25, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/384900

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/384900
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: S.R. Bannurmath, J.
Decided On: Jun 25, 2002
Case Number: Writ Petn. No. 21719 of 2002
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Section 409: [V.G.Sabhahit,J] Misappropriation Prosecution against Secretary of Society - Trial Court convicted Appellate Court upheld judgment of Trial court Revision against Held, The First Appellate Court has proceeded on the basis that prosecution has proved that accused was working...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19; Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1964 - Sections 5

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vazeer

Advocate Chandrashekar, Adv.

Respondent

The District Magistrate

Advocate M.G. Anjana Murthy, Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19; Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1964 - Sections 5
Reported In: AIR2002Kant405

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890. section 409: [v.g.sabhahit,j] misappropriation prosecution against secretary of society - trial court convicted appellate court upheld judgment of trial court revision against held, the first appellate court has proceeded on the basis that prosecution has proved that accused was working as secretary and entrusted with duty of writing cash book etc. and had misappropriated amount. appellate court has not considered evidence of other witnesses. swayed by the evidence of auditor and accepted his evidence. appellate court not referred to the evidence of other witnesses in the light of fact elicited during cross-examination of auditor. evidence of third witness cannot be thrown to winds because this witness cannot be cross-examined because of his death after examination-in-chief. evidence of other witnesses not helpful to prosecution. if evidence of auditor and other one witness is not held to be truthful evidence of other witnesses assume importance. since high court in exercise of revisional power cannot re-appreciate evidence, the matter remitted to first appellate court to pass fresh order after re-appreciating the evidence. .....be refused or rejected, such an order affecting the right of the applicant cannot be passed, without giving an opportunity to the person or the applicant for having his say. this view of mine is supported by the pronouncement of division bench decision of this court reported in ramaiah v. district magistrate, bangalore reported in : air1985 kant151 . hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner are to be upheld and the impugned order annexure-d is liable to be quashed on, the ground that an opportunity of being heard has been refused illegally to the petitioner.6. in the result, the writ petition is allowed. the impugned order at annexure-d dated 15-5-2002 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed. the matter stands remitted back to the district magistrate to consider the case afresh that too after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say. the respondent is directed to dispose of the application expeditiously at any rate not later than four months from the date of receipt of this order or production of the copy of the same by either parties.7. in the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.R. Bannurmath, J.

1. Though the matter is posted for orders, as both the sides are served and the dispute in question can be resolved on a short ground, with the consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner had applied to the Authority for the grant of NOC for running a Temporary Touring Cinema Theatre. The NOC has been rejected as per Annexure-D on the ground that the Police Report shows there was some objections from the Public and Wakf Board Committee regarding the functioning of the Cinema Theatre.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that before rejecting his application for grant of NOC, an opportunity should have been given to him to have his say regarding the alleged objections raised.

5. Right to run a Cinema Theatre is also a trade or a business under Article 19 of the Constitution. Though the Act does not provide the applicant/objector to have the right of oral say, while considering the application, if the authority considers the application and objections and grants NOC, the person claiming the same may not have objections, but if the same is to be refused or rejected, such an order affecting the right of the applicant cannot be passed, without giving an opportunity to the person or the applicant for having his say. This view of mine is supported by the pronouncement of Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramaiah v. District Magistrate, Bangalore reported in : AIR1985 Kant151 . Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner are to be upheld and the impugned order Annexure-D is liable to be quashed on, the ground that an opportunity of being heard has been refused illegally to the petitioner.

6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-D dated 15-5-2002 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted back to the District Magistrate to consider the case afresh that too after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say. The respondent is directed to dispose of the application expeditiously at any rate not later than four months from the date of receipt of this order or production of the copy of the same by either parties.

7. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2002 Same Parties Vazeer vs The District Magistrate Same Subject Constitution Same Judge S.R. Bannurmath, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19; Karnataka Cinema ...

Constitution