Ors v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Tax And

1. We have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Kanpur Development Authority.

2. This is a P.I.L. which was filed in 2008 seeking the following reliefs:- (Regulation) Act-1955", "1.a. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari all the licences granted for the Multiplexes in the buildings be Uttar Pradesh, be quashed and sealed/demolished (which are having Cinema halls on top of other occupancies), and which have been issued licenses by the Licensing Authorities, under "The Uttar Pradesh Cinemas for Exhibition of Cinematographic films, after 30-04-2001, i.e. the date of coming in to effect of the first of the two Government orders, (i.e. the G.O No.970/11-ka.ni-6-2001- bees.m.(158)/99 t.c dated-30th April-2001 and G.O No.1262/11-ka.ni-6-2001- bees.m.(158)/99 t.c dated-06-June-2001), issued by the Respondent no.1 herein i.e. Principle Secretary Tax & Registration Department, making it mandatory to issue the License only if the Multiplex, complies with all the provisions of "Byelaws for Cinema Buildings” formulated by the Bureau of Indian Standards), as have been constructed or are 2 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 operating in violation of the said standards, specially in violation of Byelaw-5.2.1, which says that “Cinema house may be constructed underneath the other permitted occupancy in the same building but not in the basement. IT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE TOP OF OTHER OCCUPANCY."

1.b. That Similar orders may be passed in relation to the Multiplexes which are operationa in violation of Byelaw-6.1, which says that "---Front Side and Rear Open Spaces---The open space at front shall be not less than 12 m and other open spaces around the building shall be not less than 6 m. The front open space for increasing height of the buildings shall also be governed by 7.2 (a). Note-However if Cinema Houses are permitted in pure residential zones, the open spaces around the building shall be not less than 12 m."

1.c. That similar orders may be passed in relation to the Multiplexes which have been constructed, without inviting objections from the general public, in violation of Byelaws- 3.6.1; 3.6.2 ;3.6.3 ; 3.6.4 ; 3.7; 3.7. 1.

2.a. That by issuing a writ, order or direction of in the nature of certiorari, the licences of all the Multiplexes in Uttar Pradesh, and constructed in Residential Zones, in violations of Section-5- (1)- (a)- and (aa)-(iii) & (ii) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act-1955, read with Explanation (2) which says “For the purposes of clause (aa) the distance shall be measured from the outer boundary of the compound of the cinema building to the outer boundary of the compound, if any or the other building mentioned in that clause".] and read with Rule 7-(2), (a), (b) (i) to (iv) of U.P. Cinematograph Rules-1951, be quashed and the buildings be sealed and demolished

2.b. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the opposite parties be directed to seal /demolish all the Multiplexes, in Uttar Pradesh, constructed on the basis of the Awas Department G.O.No.4218/9-Aa-3-99-42- vividh/99 Residential/Industrial Zones of a City or Development Area, although Cities/Development areas, prohibited their constructions in these areas, on the date of sanctioning of the building plans of these Multiplexes. effective Master Plans December-2000, 14th

2.c. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the opposite parties and the licensing authorities in the State of U.P. be restrained to allow any new construction of Cinema / Multiplex in violations of the Act, 3 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 Rules & the "Byelaws for Construction of Cinema Buildings" and also not to issue a fresh License or Renew any License for Cinematographic Exhibition to any such Cinema / multiplex, which is found in violation of these statutory provisions. 3a. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the responsibility & punishment of the negligent officers, be ensured after an enquiry who have allowed these illegal Multiplexes to be constructed & occupied in violation of the Statutory provisions. 3b. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, all the Multiplexes, in Uttar Pradesh, be sealed /demolished which have been thrown open for public use and allowed to be occupied without obtaining the mandatory Completion Certificate as required by Section-15-A-(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act-1973. 3c. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, the Awas Department G.O.No.4218 / 9-Aa-3-99- 42-vividh/99 dated 14th December-2000 be quashed, which allows for construction of Multiplexes in Residential area, in violation of Section-5 of the U.P. Cinemas (regulation) Act- 1955. The same G.O also directs for their construction in such land Use Zones also in which their construction is otherwise prohibited by a duly sanctioned Master Plan of the City/Development Area and such directions are in violation of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act-1973, which has given the jurisdiction to the individual Authorities to make their own Master Plans, keeping in view the special needs, occupations of the residents etc of the Cities & such, directions given to the Authorities, under Section-41-(3), by the State Government, which are contrary to the Master Plans and other statutory obligations, can not be said to have been issued for effective implementation of the Act and are thus void in law. 3d. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to ensure that in case only the Cinemas portion of the Multiplex is directed to be sealed / discontinued the use of, then the Commercial User of the other portion should also be discontinued because the very purpose of the Illegal G.O dated-14th December-2000, of the Awas department was to allow Commercial exploitation of comparatively cheaper land of Residential/Industrial Use Zones, under the garb of Cinema Policy. In such cases, the remaining portion should be put to the original permissible Use as per the Master Plans, at the Time of sanction of the Building Plans of these Multiplexes. 3e. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of 4 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 & 2 to lay down guidelines or specify the other Ancillary or necessary Land Users/ Occupancies (other than Cinemas), which may be permitted in Cinema / Multiplex Complexes, after taking in to consideration the safety of the general public, visiting them, so that these guidelines may be followed by the Licensing Authority, while giving his permission under "Rule-18-(Prohibition of use of a Building for purposes other than that of a Cinema"), of the U.P. Cinematography Rules- 1951.

4. That such further & additional relief in the circumstances as the Hon'ble Court may deem necessary in public interest.

5. That the exemplary cost be awarded to the petitioners, who have brought the full facts before the Hon'ble Court not only at great cost & labor but also at great peril to their lives as due to the omissions and corrupt practices of the Respondent Officers, they are creating a very dangerous situations for the peace loving but vigilant Citizens, because if the vigilant Citizens object to the continuation of these illegal activities, then because the financial interests of the beneficiaries of these illegal sanctions of the Authorities are hurt & they then often issue threats to the lives of the peace loving Citizens who object. Such Citizens then have only two alternatives i.e. either to expose themselves to grave danger or to quietly sit at home while the life of general public are put in grave danger and their City, their surroundings & their localities, the environment & their health, all these are destroyed."

3. We find that opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9, who appear to be running some Multiplex are stationed at Kanpur. The Development Authority, i.e. opposite party no.5 is also at Kanpur. The opposite party no.4 is the District Magistrate, Kanpur. As regards the opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 are concerned, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action, if any, is at Kanpur. Therefore, the petition, if there is a cause, should have been filed at Allahabad and not at Lucknow.

4. As regards the other reliefs pertaining to all the multiplexes in the State of U.P., unless specific instances of any violation of law is pointed out in respect of the concerned multiplexes and their owners are impleaded, it is not possible to consider the reliefs. We leave it open for the petitioner to raise all the issues, if there is a cause still subsisting, before this Court at Allahabad so far as 5 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 are concerned and as regards the other multiplex owners or multiplexes, separate petitions can be filed if there is a cause and locus standi and if it is otherwise permissible in law, especially as this petition was filed way back in 2008.

5. Disposed of accordingly. October 10, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. We have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Kanpur Development Authority.

2. This is a P.I.L. which was filed in 2008 seeking the following reliefs:- (Regulation) Act-1955", "1.a. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari all the licences granted for the Multiplexes in the buildings be Uttar Pradesh, be quashed and sealed/demolished (which are having Cinema halls on top of other occupancies), and which have been issued licenses by the Licensing Authorities, under "The Uttar Pradesh Cinemas for Exhibition of Cinematographic films, after 30-04-2001, i.e. the date of coming in to effect of the first of the two Government orders, (i.e. the G.O No.970/11-ka.ni-6-2001- bees.m.(158)/99 t.c dated-30th April-2001 and G.O No.1262/11-ka.ni-6-2001- bees.m.(158)/99 t.c dated-06-June-2001), issued by the Respondent no.1 herein i.e. Principle Secretary Tax & Registration Department, making it mandatory to issue the License only if the Multiplex, complies with all the provisions of "Byelaws for Cinema Buildings” formulated by the Bureau of Indian Standards), as have been constructed or are 2 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 operating in violation of the said standards, specially in violation of Byelaw-5.2.1, which says that “Cinema house may be constructed underneath the other permitted occupancy in the same building but not in the basement. IT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE TOP OF OTHER OCCUPANCY."

1.b. That Similar orders may be passed in relation to the Multiplexes which are operationa in violation of Byelaw-6.1, which says that "---Front Side and Rear Open Spaces---The open space at front shall be not less than 12 m and other open spaces around the building shall be not less than 6 m. The front open space for increasing height of the buildings shall also be governed by 7.2 (a). Note-However if Cinema Houses are permitted in pure residential zones, the open spaces around the building shall be not less than 12 m."

1.c. That similar orders may be passed in relation to the Multiplexes which have been constructed, without inviting objections from the general public, in violation of Byelaws- 3.6.1; 3.6.2 ;3.6.3 ; 3.6.4 ; 3.7; 3.7. 1.

2.a. That by issuing a writ, order or direction of in the nature of certiorari, the licences of all the Multiplexes in Uttar Pradesh, and constructed in Residential Zones, in violations of Section-5- (1)- (a)- and (aa)-(iii) & (ii) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act-1955, read with Explanation (2) which says “For the purposes of clause (aa) the distance shall be measured from the outer boundary of the compound of the cinema building to the outer boundary of the compound, if any or the other building mentioned in that clause".] and read with Rule 7-(2), (a), (b) (i) to (iv) of U.P. Cinematograph Rules-1951, be quashed and the buildings be sealed and demolished

2.b. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the opposite parties be directed to seal /demolish all the Multiplexes, in Uttar Pradesh, constructed on the basis of the Awas Department G.O.No.4218/9-Aa-3-99-42- vividh/99 Residential/Industrial Zones of a City or Development Area, although Cities/Development areas, prohibited their constructions in these areas, on the date of sanctioning of the building plans of these Multiplexes. effective Master Plans December-2000, 14th

2.c. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the opposite parties and the licensing authorities in the State of U.P. be restrained to allow any new construction of Cinema / Multiplex in violations of the Act, 3 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 Rules & the "Byelaws for Construction of Cinema Buildings" and also not to issue a fresh License or Renew any License for Cinematographic Exhibition to any such Cinema / multiplex, which is found in violation of these statutory provisions. 3a. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the responsibility & punishment of the negligent officers, be ensured after an enquiry who have allowed these illegal Multiplexes to be constructed & occupied in violation of the Statutory provisions. 3b. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, all the Multiplexes, in Uttar Pradesh, be sealed /demolished which have been thrown open for public use and allowed to be occupied without obtaining the mandatory Completion Certificate as required by Section-15-A-(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act-1973. 3c. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, the Awas Department G.O.No.4218 / 9-Aa-3-99- 42-vividh/99 dated 14th December-2000 be quashed, which allows for construction of Multiplexes in Residential area, in violation of Section-5 of the U.P. Cinemas (regulation) Act- 1955. The same G.O also directs for their construction in such land Use Zones also in which their construction is otherwise prohibited by a duly sanctioned Master Plan of the City/Development Area and such directions are in violation of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act-1973, which has given the jurisdiction to the individual Authorities to make their own Master Plans, keeping in view the special needs, occupations of the residents etc of the Cities & such, directions given to the Authorities, under Section-41-(3), by the State Government, which are contrary to the Master Plans and other statutory obligations, can not be said to have been issued for effective implementation of the Act and are thus void in law. 3d. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to ensure that in case only the Cinemas portion of the Multiplex is directed to be sealed / discontinued the use of, then the Commercial User of the other portion should also be discontinued because the very purpose of the Illegal G.O dated-14th December-2000, of the Awas department was to allow Commercial exploitation of comparatively cheaper land of Residential/Industrial Use Zones, under the garb of Cinema Policy. In such cases, the remaining portion should be put to the original permissible Use as per the Master Plans, at the Time of sanction of the Building Plans of these Multiplexes. 3e. That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of 4 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 & 2 to lay down guidelines or specify the other Ancillary or necessary Land Users/ Occupancies (other than Cinemas), which may be permitted in Cinema / Multiplex Complexes, after taking in to consideration the safety of the general public, visiting them, so that these guidelines may be followed by the Licensing Authority, while giving his permission under "Rule-18-(Prohibition of use of a Building for purposes other than that of a Cinema"), of the U.P. Cinematography Rules- 1951.

4. That such further & additional relief in the circumstances as the Hon'ble Court may deem necessary in public interest.

5. That the exemplary cost be awarded to the petitioners, who have brought the full facts before the Hon'ble Court not only at great cost & labor but also at great peril to their lives as due to the omissions and corrupt practices of the Respondent Officers, they are creating a very dangerous situations for the peace loving but vigilant Citizens, because if the vigilant Citizens object to the continuation of these illegal activities, then because the financial interests of the beneficiaries of these illegal sanctions of the Authorities are hurt & they then often issue threats to the lives of the peace loving Citizens who object. Such Citizens then have only two alternatives i.e. either to expose themselves to grave danger or to quietly sit at home while the life of general public are put in grave danger and their City, their surroundings & their localities, the environment & their health, all these are destroyed."

3. We find that opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9, who appear to be running some Multiplex are stationed at Kanpur. The Development Authority, i.e. opposite party no.5 is also at Kanpur. The opposite party no.4 is the District Magistrate, Kanpur. As regards the opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 are concerned, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action, if any, is at Kanpur. Therefore, the petition, if there is a cause, should have been filed at Allahabad and not at Lucknow.

4. As regards the other reliefs pertaining to all the multiplexes in the State of U.P., unless specific instances of any violation of law is pointed out in respect of the concerned multiplexes and their owners are impleaded, it is not possible to consider the reliefs. We leave it open for the petitioner to raise all the issues, if there is a cause still subsisting, before this Court at Allahabad so far as 5 WPIL No. 7439 of 2008 opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 are concerned and as regards the other multiplex owners or multiplexes, separate petitions can be filed if there is a cause and locus standi and if it is otherwise permissible in law, especially as this petition was filed way back in 2008.

5. Disposed of accordingly. October 10, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench