Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 584 of 2015 Petitioner :- M/S Mansion Cable Network Private Ltd. And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Siddharth Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner gives up his right to file rejoinder affidavit. Case to proceed on the basis of affidavit available on record.
Heard Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Dass, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the State and para nos.10 and 11 of the same are quoted hereunder:
"10. That in reply to the contents of paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition, it is submitted that representation of petitioners was rightly rejected and the petitioner, if aggrieved has got a remedy of filing an appeal before the State Government under Rule 23 of the Rules read with sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the U.P. Cinema (Regulation Act) Act, 1955. The impugned order dated 01.05.2016 has rightly been passed and suffers from no illegality and is liable to be sustained by the Hon'ble Court.
11. That the contents of paragraph nos.20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27 and 28 of the writ petition refers to various provisions of the U.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955, the Video Rules of 1988, the U.P. Entertainment & Betting Tax Act and the same may be looked into at the time of hearing of the writ petition for their true scope and in true interpretation. Suffice it to state that the entire controversy has been put to rest by this Hon'ble Court in its judgment dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure CA-1) and the answering respondents craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to the same in extenso at the time of hearing of the petition."
The petitioner does not deny these provisions. It is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him under the Act and the rules.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018/pks