THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30495 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is an exhibitor of films and holds B-Form license issued under Section 10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. The petitioner was issued show cause notice in proceedings bearing No.C1/157/2010-M, dated 09.11.2010, to explain as to why his B-Form license should not be cancelled for the lapses on his part and violation of the conditions thereof. The allegations made against the petitioner, as evident from the said show cause notice, read as under: 1. Toilets are unhygienic condition and giving intolerable bad breathing. 2. There is no sufficient drinking water facility. On opening the lid of the drinking water box containing (2) taps, there is frog in the water, suddenly it jumped to outside. The water therein is dirty. It was not being cleaned even once in a month. 3. Air Conditioner is not functioning. 4. No spittoons are there at each class. Only one spittoon is situated outside the veranda, which is totally in dirty condition. 5. Spittoon pans available in the waiting hall are also not in hygienic condition. 6. Cool drink and water bottles are being sold at higher rates i.e., Rs.15/- to Rs.16/-. 7. The door of the gents’ toilet room is removed, giving bad breathing in the waiting hall. 8. There are no roofs to the cycle stand and scooter stand and being charges @ Rs.5/- and Rs.10/- respectively. 9. There is no original “B” Form license duly renewed. The licensee is said to have been submitted in Revenue Divisional Officer’s Office. It is not submitted in the RDO’s Office as per the verification in the office. As per xerox copy available with the exhibitor, the B-Form license was last renewed up to 31.05.2006. 10. There are no enhancement orders of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad with regards to the rates of ticket. The rates are as follows for the shows now exhibiting. 1. Balcony upstairs ‘B’ Rs.50-00 2. Balcony ground floor “A” Rs.50-00 3. Ist Class Rs.20-00 4. IInd Class Rs.10-00 The petitioner has filed detailed explanation disputing the allegations. A perusal of the show cause notice indicates that primarily, the allegations against the petitioner are that fire extinguishers are not provided, air-condition is not functioning, B-Form license is not duly renewed, unhygienic toilets etc. In the explanation, dated 26.11.2010, the petitioner stated that he has provided fire extinguishers, is running theatre without any complaint and is taking steps time to time to maintain the toilets in good condition. Even with regard to other allegations, he denied. But, the second respondent – Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, Home Department (Cinemas), Nizamabad, merely stating that the explanation filed by the petitioner is not convincing, passed order, dated 30.11.2010, revoking his license. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent has not considered his explanation and passed the impugned order mechanically. It is submitted by Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that all the defects noted are already rectified and in spite of the same, without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents that as the petitioner has violated the conditions of B-Form license, the impugned order was passed revoking his license. I have perused copies of the impugned order, show cause notice, dated 09.11.2010 and explanation, dated 26.11.2010. From a perusal of the show cause notice, although it is evident that certain allegations are made against the petitioner with regard to not providing air-conditioning and fire extinguishers and not renewing B-Form license etc., the petitioner has filed detailed explanation denying the same and he made a statement that he has rectified the lapses, which are alleged against him, and in spite of the same, without referring to the explanation offered by him, by merely stating that his explanation is not convincing, the impugned order was passed. When once the explanation is called for and it is filed by the licensee, it is obligatory on the part of the licensing authority to look into the explanation offered by the licensee on the allegations, to examine the same and pass appropriate orders. But, in spite of filing explanation by the petitioner, without recording any finding thereon, the impugned order was passed merely stating that the explanation is not convincing. As the said order is not a reasoned one and the explanation of the petitioner is not considered, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to direct the second respondent to re-examine the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, order under challenge, dated 30.11.2010, passed in proceedings bearing No.C1/157/2010-M, is set aside with the direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to file additional explanation, if he wants to do so. The writ petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th DECEMBER, 2010. kvni