HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19878 of 2008 Date : 22.09.2011 Between : M/s.Sri Padmavathi Theatre, Ongole, rep. by its Proprietor. …..Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary (Home) & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19878 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is exhibiter of cinema films. This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 31st of August 2008, issued by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector in RCC.1/713/2008, by which, the B-Form licence granted to the petitioner is cancelled in exercise of powers under the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955. One Sri Kolla Pullaiah, claiming to be the President of the Cine Audience Welfare Association, has filed a complaint before the Joint Collector, alleging that he has witnessed movie by name ‘Parthu’ on 08.06.2008 for matinee show at 2.30 p.m. in the petitioner-theatre and the ticket booking clerk has collected Rs.40/-, though on the ticket, it is printed as Rs.30/-. It is alleged that in the printed ticket of Rs.30/-, a rubber stamp of Rs.40/- was made. Similarly, another complaint was filed by the said person that he went to the morning show on 29.06.2008 in the theatre of the petitioner and witnessed the movie by name ‘Dasavatharam’. The management of the theatre, even after expiry of special rates permission period of two weeks, collected Rs.50/- on the ticket, though it was printed as Rs.30/-. Based on the aforesaid complaints, and also on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, after giving show cause notice to the petitioner and after receipt of explanation, the impugned order is passed, cancelling the licence granted to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that though the allegations made in the show cause notice are denied by him, and though no valid material was available in support of the allegations levelled against him, and further, without giving him any opportunity to examine the complainant, the impugned order is passed. It is further submitted that though reliance is placed on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer while passing the order of cancellation, the copy of the said report is not furnished to him before passing the said order. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in view of the allegations made against the petitioner, an inquiry is conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has confirmed that the petitioner was collecting higher rates than permitted rates, and based on such report, the impugned order is passed. Section 9-A of the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 deals with the penalties and imprisonment for various types of violations by the owner or in-charge of a cinema theatre. As per Section 9-A(ii) of the Act, when the owner sells or allows to be sold the tickets at higher rates than the maximum rates fixed, he can be imprisoned or a fine of Rs.10,000/- can be imposed on him. Section 10 of the said Act empowers the respondents to revoke or suspend the licence in case of violation of conditions therein. In this case, it is to be noticed that though the President of the Cine Audience Welfare Association has complained against the petitioner-theatre, no inquiry is conducted in to the allegation of selling tickets at higher rates, by giving opportunity to the petitioner. When the petitioner denied the aforesaid allegation, unless an opportunity is given to him to examine the complainant, it is not possible to record any definite finding on a complaint of such nature. It is also to be noticed that though reliance is placed on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is not disputed that a copy of such report is also not furnished to the petitioner. Further, in this case, it is to be noticed that the order of cancellation was passed as early as on 31.08.2008, and after filing of the writ petition, the said order was suspended by this Court by an order dated 11.09.2008, and further, when the Act prescribes imposition of penalty also, in the absence of any definite evidence on the charges levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order of cancellation is modified, by imposing the penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, modifying the impugned order of cancellation to that of imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit the said penalty amount before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd September 2011 ajr