Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dance programme in S. Muthukumaraswamy, Proprietor Of ... vs The Government Of Pondicherry ... on 1 February, 2006Matching Fragments
4. After purchasing the hotel on 09.12.2002, he had applied for transfer of all licences to his name and got the Bar Licence transferred after paying a Name Transfer Fee for Rs. 4 lakhs; the Classical Dance Programme Licence and Trading Licence were also likewise transferred. He had also settled all the arrears of the previous owner towards ESI/PF contributions which had not been done since 1993.
5. The petitioner further submits that originally, the licence for conducting Classical Dance Programme used to be granted on annual basis and after July 2002, the Municipal authorities started renewing the licence for a period of three months only and when this was objected to, the second respondent stated that the same was necessitated due to technical reasons and since then, the renewal has been for three-monthly periods only. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the ticket fees of Rs. 50/- was enhanced to Rs. 100/- and he has been paying the Entertainment Tax of 45% regularly on a weekly basis and the Entertainment Tax paid by him ranges from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per week. He further states that Property Tax is also collected along with the application for the renewal of licence for Classical Dance Programme every March despite his objections to the revision.
9. The petitioner in W.P. No. 39281 of 2005 is the Sole Proprietor of Sun Guest House, engaged in hotel business, since September 2000. The said hotel has boarding and lodging facilities with 12 rooms for guests and had a valid Bar Licence, Boarding and Lodging Licence and licence for conducting Madras Dance Programmes, issued by the Excise Department and Municipal authorities.
10. The petitioner further submits that originally, the licence for conducting Madras Dance Programme used to be granted on annual basis and after July 2002, the Municipal authorities started renewing the licence for a period of three months only and when this was objected to, the second respondent stated that the same was necessitated due to technical reasons and since then, the renewal has been for three-monthly periods only.
29. The second respondent has denied all the allegations, claims and averments contained in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions except those which are specifically admitted.
30. According to the second respondent in both the writ petitions, it is true that the Pondicherry Municipality granted licence to the petitioner-1 i.e. Fillo Hotel, to use the first floor of the building bearing Door No. 4/14, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry, for the conduct of Classical Dance Programme initially for the period from 06.07.2001 to 05.07.2002 and in respect of petitioner - 2, i.e. Sun Guest House, the Pondicherry Municipality granted licence to use the third floor of the building bearing door No. 534 at Anna Salai, Pondicherry for the conduct of Madras Dance Programme, initially for the period from 11.09.2000 to 31.03.2001 and thereafter, the licencea in respect of the above-mentioned hotels, were renewed upto 31.03.2003 on annual basis.
33. The second respondent in both the writ petitions has also contended that the issue relating to the conduct of such dance programmes in the hotels was raised during the Budget Session on the Floor of the Pondicherry Assembly Session and objections were raised on the basis of the claim that such dances in the hotels were immoral and demoralise the people. The Hon'ble Minister for Local Administration replied that the matter would be examined and appropriate decision would be taken in the matter. However, in the meanwhile, the licences issued to the hotels for conduct of Classical Dance Programmes were renewed from time to time for shorter duration and the last renewal was made for the period from 01.09.2005 to 30.11.2005. The claim of the petitioners that they had raised objections to the renewal of licences for such shorter duration is not true and denied inasmuch as the petitioners did not raise any objection either orally or in writing and the said allegation is absolutely untrue.