IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 20031 of 2004 BETWEEN: M/s. Vishnu Mahal Theatre, rep. by its Proprietrix, Smt. C. Sujatha, W/o. C. Ramachandra Raju, R/o. 1/316, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Puttur, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (General.A), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2004 in Roc. C1/10240/2002 of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, void, without jurisdiction, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 10601 of 2005 BETWEEN: M/s. Vishnu Mahal Theatre, rep. by its Proprietrix, Smt. C. Sujatha, W/o. C. Ramachandra Raju, Business & Cultivation, aged about 53 years, D.No.1/316, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Puttur, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (General.A) Dept., Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dt.09-07-2004 in G.O.R.T.No.1029 of the 1st respondent herein, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary malafide, void, without jurisdiction, contrary to law, violative of principle of natural justice accordingly set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: WP.No.10601 of 2005: Petitioner-theater represented by its Proprietor questions the order of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1029 Home (General.A) Department dated 09.07.2004 in dismissing the appeal filed by it against the order dated 03.03.2003 of the Joint Collector, Chittoor District in revoking B-Form Licence under Section 10(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for a period of two months. 2. The petitioner-theater filed an appeal on 17.03.2003 against the order of suspension of the licence passed by the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 03.03.2003 and on the said appeal, the Government granted stay vide its memo dated 28.03.2003 staying the operation of the proceedings of the Joint Collector. Thereafter, after calling for the remarks and examining the records, the Government dismissed the appeal vide G.O.Rt.No.1029 dated 09.07.2004 vacating the stay granted earlier vide memo dated 28.03.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-theater submits that there is no justification on the part of the Government in dismissing the appeal without hearing the petitioner and without giving any reasonable opportunity. 4. In the instant case, the licence granted to the petitioner-theater has been revoked under Section 10 (2)(b) of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity to submit an explanation. As per the show cause notice it was alleged that when the inspection was made in respect of the theater on 21.10.2002 it was found that the petitioner has not provided fire-fighting appliances in the auditorium and thereby violated Para 8(1) (a) (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and (b) (i)(ii)(iii) of Appendix III of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 and also violated B-Form condition No.46 under Item No.12 by not keeping the DCR ready for verification at the time of inspection. The show cause notice was served on 02.12.2002 but no explanation was submitted, therefore, the Joint Collector passed the suspension order dated 03.03.2003. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dismissal of the appeal without giving any opportunity is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that under Section 10-2A of the Act it is open for the licensing authority to impose penalty amount up to Rs.10,000/- in lieu of such revocation or suspension, for good and sufficient reasons, after giving reasonable opportunity. 6. In the instant case, after issuing show cause notice the licence was suspended. Against the suspension order passed under Section 10(2)(b) of the Act, an appeal lies to the Government under Section 10(4) of the Act and the Government may make such orders as it thinks fit. Section 10(4) of the Act do not provide any further opportunity of personal hearing while disposing the appeal, as the main provision provides that the Government may make such order as it may think fit. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision entitling the petitioner for personal hearing/reasonable opportunity, it cannot be said that the said order of the Government is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-theater further submits that this Court in K. SEETHARAMI REDDY V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1] held that there are three courses open before the licensing authority under Section 10(2) (a) (b) and under Section 10 (2-A) and the licensing authority shall indicate the appropriate penalty that is sought to be imposed in the show cause notice but they cannot impose any penalty whatever they think without recording reasons. In the said case, the licensing authority revoked the licence against which an appeal was filed and the Government did not interfere with the order of the licensing authority and dismissed the appeal. The dismissal order was questioned in the aforesaid case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court came to the conclusion that levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of the justice. WP.No.20031 of 2004: 8. This writ petition has been filed questioning the order of the Joint Collector in Roc.C1/10240/2002 dated 26.10.2004 passed pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1029 dated 09.07.2004, wherein it is stated that in view of the dismissal of the appeal, the B form licence is suspended for a period of two months from 26.10.2004 to 25.12.2004 having regard to the period of suspension already undergone and the payment of penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be refunded to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-theatre submits that pursuant to the order of the Joint Collector vide proceedings in Roc.C1/10240/2002 dated 11.08.2004 imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/-, in lieu of suspension or revocation, the petitioner-theatre has remitted the penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- vide challan No.9487 dated 31.08.2004. He further submits that the Joint Collector, having collected the penalty amount of Rs.10,000/-, passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2004, pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal, suspending the licence for two months and remitting/refunding the penalty amount to the petitioner-theatre, is illegal and arbitrary. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of revocation of suspension of licence is right and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. 11. I am of the opinion that insofar as the first writ petition is concerned dismissing the appeal without giving reasonable opportunity cannot be held as illegal and arbitrary as Section 10(4) of the Act do not provide any personal hearing or for giving reasonable opportunity and it is open for the Government to pass appropriate orders after filing the appeal as it thinks fit. Unless specific provision is made under the statute the question of giving reasonable opportunity does not arise. Insofar as the observation made by this Court that imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 10 (2-A) of the Act, in lieu of revocation or suspension, meets ends of justice is concerned, it is made clear that Section 10 (2-A) of the Act cannot be invoked in all circumstances, and it can be invoked only when there are good and sufficient to be recorded in writing to impose on the licensee a sum not exceeding Rs.10,000/-. Whatever may be the reasons, in the instant case, once the licensing authority decided to impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/- it may not be just and proper to implement the suspension order passed earlier. However, the order of imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been passed by the Joint Collector pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by the Government and thereafter, the Joint Collector again passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2004 suspending the licence of the petitioner-theatre while directing to remit the penalty amount to the petitioner, which action of the Joint Collector is unsustainable and therefore, appropriate action requires to be taken against the Joint Collector. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Government dated 09.07.2004 as well as the order of the Joint Collector dated 26.10.2004 impugned in these writ petitions are modified imposing the penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner-theatre under Section 10 (2-A) of the Act. However, the petitioner-theatre shall comply with all the defects pointed out in the show cause notice and if the said defects are not rectified, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 16, 2008 DSK [1] 1998 (1) ALD 387