' The cinema in question was owned by Ch. Muhammad, predecessor of the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 12, who operated the same under a licence issued by respondent No,1 under the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), read with the rules.
The licensee having died in August, 1996, a dispute has arisen as to who should be licensed to run the cinema. Apparently acting under Rule 70 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), made under section 13(4) read with section 19 of the Ordinance, respondent No,1 has granted a licence in favour of the legal heirs, viz., the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 12. It is against this action of respondent No,1 that the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition praying that the order, dated 10-5-1997 and the consequential licence in favour of the legal heirs be declared as without lawful authority.
2. At the outset the learned counsel was asked to show as to how the petitioner was aggrieved as he himself is one of the legal heirs and his name appears in the list of licensees. Learned counsel answered that the petitioner wanted exclusive licensee in, his name and as such he can throw challenge to the issue of licence in favour of all the legal heirs. However, the learned counsel failed to cite any specific provision of law/rule whereby on the death of original licensee, one or the other legal heir can lay exclusive claim to the licence. In fact provision in Rule 70(2) of the Rules is to the contrary and it provides that "on death of the licensee the licence may be transferable by the District Magistrate to the legal heirs of the deceased licensee.... " .
3. In spite of the above clear provision, learned counsel, while referring to Rule 69 of the Rules, asserted that the word "person" in Rule 69(1) refers to an individual and not a body of persons.
According to the learned counsel, under the scheme of the Ordinance and the Rules, it is only one human individual who can be granted the licence and body of persons or individuals cannot be given the status of a licensee. He has attempted to fortify this submission by referring to the definition of the word "person" as laid down in section 2, clause 47 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956.
4. The argument is devoid of force. Even in the definition of person in the General Clauses Act, a body of persons whether incorporated or otherwise, falls within the definition. Legal heirs as such is a body and they would, therefore, squarely fall within the definition of person. The unambiguous and clear language used in Rule 70(2), as reproduced above, belies the contention of the learned counsel. The expression "legal heirs" used in this provision, justifies the action taken by the District Magistrate. Further, an examination of Form "B" (the form of licence) clearly shows that where more than one persons are the licensee, they can nominate one of them to be in charge of the -licensed premises and the cinematograph apparatus fitted therein.
5. Looked at from another angle, the provision in Rule 70(2) of the. Rules is consistent with the general principles of succession under Islamic Law. The rights of the deceased licence-holder automatically stand vested in the body of the legal heirs on the demise of the licensee. The rule in question simply recognizes this fact.
6. Learned counsel has been unable to show any illegality in the impugned act. This petition is dismissed, in limine. Writ .