9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall, namely, G.N.G. Multiplex, at Saharanpur, which was constructed by partnership firm as per terms and conditions of deed of partnership dated 05.03.2008 contained in Annexure no.3 to the petition. He was granted license by the licensing authority to run Audi 1 to 4 Cinema Hall in the aforesaid G.N.G. Multiplex. (4) The State Government had issued a Government Order dated 03.01.2011, whereby in superssesion of earlier Government Orders and also Incentive Scheme, 2005, the State Government had floated new Incentive Scheme for the year 2010 for the purpose opening multiplex cinema hall in the State. This Incentive Scheme of 2010 was effective w.e.f. 31.03.2015. As per the said Scheme of 2010, the benefit of this scheme shall be admissible to all such multiplexes constructed during this period, which have completed the construction of the multiplex after obtaining prior permission for construction from the licensing authority under the rules provided in the UP Cinema Rules, 1951 and have obtained license for cinema screening by 31.3.2015. However, those applicants who, being influenced by the scheme of Government Order dated 27.09.2005, have started construction work of multiplex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the District Magistrate without providing any opportunity of hearing passed an order dated 05.02.2021 against the petitioner relating to violation of terms of condition as mentioned in Government Order dated 03.10.2011 and consequently directed the petitioner to deposit/refund Rs. 4,37,50,359.00 being the cumulative amount arrived after the grant-in-aid amount sanctioned of Rs. 2,89,64,466/- and interest of 18% amounting to Rs. 1,47,85,893/-. In the interregnum, the petitioner was also able to obtain the requisite compliance certificate under the UP Cinematograph Rules, 1951 from the Electrical Inspector on 25.03.2021, Medical Officer of Health on 21.03.2021 and Regional Fire Officer on 01.04.2021, leading to renewal of license of Audi 1 to 4 of the petitioner with effect from 05.04.2021 and valid upto 31.0.3.2024. (8) The petitioner, admittedly, did not assail the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, however, he filed a representation dated 03.12.2021 against the order dated 05.02.2021. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary, State of U.P from the concerned Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh had sought various reports from time to time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the impugned orders as the representation had been pending consideration with the competent Authority since more than 3 years. (11) On the other hand, leaned Standing Counsel for State, although did not dispute about the facts and events of the present writ petition, however, has strongly objected the manner in which the recovery proceedings are being tried to be stalled by the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is in clear violation of condition mention in para-7 of the agreement and failed to run the Multiplex in continuation to the grant-in-aid for five years. According to him, the petitioner closed down the Multiplex from 15.10.2020 to 15.04.2021 and caused great revenue loss to the department. The learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been sending representation to various authorities including the Agriculture Minister, Chief Minister through IGRS, Indian Industries Association etc. merely to pressurize the department and eventually delay the recovery proceedings against them. (12) Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record available before us in the present writ petition, this Court find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Income Tax Act, Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 or we had section 35F of the Central Excise Act or section 107(6) or section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, it can be safely deduced from the said analogy that demand of a portion of demanded money as a pre-condition for hearing is borne from the statute itself and in all the cases the said pre-condition is imposed at the appellate stage, i.e the time when the duty or demand comes to be adjudicated upon by the original administrative or quasi-judicial body and most importantly the demand is not in a fluid state. (15) In the present case, this Court finds that the demand to deposit 10% of the total grant-in-aid concession provided to the petitioner, for hearing of the representation is neither founded in the statute nor the same is at an appellate stage. Learned Standing Counsel is unable to point out any provision under law under which the State Government/opposite party No.1 would had demanded the pre-deposit for disposal of the representation of the petitioner. Further, this Court is unable to appreciate the conduct of the opposite parties in demanding the said pre-deposit at the belated stage of April, 2023, es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/ her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
