IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10811 of 2005 Between: Management of Bhavani threatre, represented by its Managing Partner Smt.J.Nagendramma ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer Chirala Prakasam District. 2 Joint Collector Ongole 3 Collector, Prakasam District 4 Prl. Secretary to Government of A.P. Home (Genl.A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particulalry, one in nature of mandamus; by declaring the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent, vide GOR No.505, Home( General.A) Department dt.15.4.2005 and consequentially that of impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent, vide RCC No.29/05 dt.6.1.2005 asillegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of AP Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955, as amended from time to time, and the Rules made thereunder. And consequentially to set aside the proceedings and pass such other order/orders that are deemed fitand proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.Y.PADMAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10811 of 2005 O R D E R: The petitioner is M/s.Bhavani Theatre, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chirala vide proceedings in RCC.29/2005, dated 06.01.2005 informed the petitioner that in view of exhibition of ‘Balu’ picture at 6.30 am on 06.01.2005 without any authorization or permission from the competent authority and in view of the complaints that the Management was selling tickets over and above the rates prescribed by the Government, the Theatre is hereby seized at 12 noon on 06.01.2005 until further orders from the competent authority, as per the telephonic instructions of the Joint Collector, Ongole dated 06.01.2005. Aggrieved by the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, closing the Theatre pursuant to the telephonic orders of the Joint Collector, Ongole, the petitioner filed an appeal on 06.01.2005 itself on the file of the 4th respondent and the Government by Order in Letter No.805/Genl.A2/2005-1, dated 10.01.2005 stayed the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 06.01.2005 and ultimately the appeal has been dismissed suspending the licence of the petitioner for a period of one month from the date of receipt of the orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.505, Home (General-A) Department, dated 15.04.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that the suspension of the licence of the petitioner for a period of one month is illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to Sec.10(2) of the A.P.Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Government in the impugned G.O. held that though no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before taking the appropriate action, but it is noticed that admittedly the petitioner was not having authorisation or permission to screen the morning picture and that the petitioner sold the tickets for over and above the rates than prescribed by the Government. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said averments whether the petitioner sold the tickets for higher rates or not, but admittedly, the petitioner screened the picture on 06.01.2005 at 6 a.m. without having any permission. Therefore, the violation as admitted is not in dispute. If that be so, the further question that arises for consideration is as to what could be the reasonable action to be taken either for suspension or for imposing penalty in lieu of suspension. Under Sec.10 (2) (b) of the Act, if the licencee fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules made thereunder or any of the conditions of the licence granted to it, is liable to be revoked or suspended after giving reasonable opportunity. Admittedly, in the present case no notice was given to the petitioner proposing to suspend the licence for a period of one month. Under Sub-Section 2-A of Section 10 (2) where a licencee is liable to be revoked or suspended under Sub- Sec.(2) of Sec.10, the licensing authority may, notwithstanding anything in sub-sec.(2) and for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, impose on the licencee a sum not exceeding rupees ten thousand by way of penalty in lieu of such revocation or suspension. In the instant case, the licence was suspended for a period of one month without giving any notice. It is not known whether the Theatre was kept closed after the seizure at 12 noon on 06.01.2005 till the stay was granted by the Government on 10.01.2005. But, however, as the principles of natural justice with regard to imposition of penalty has not been followed, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in lieu of suspension of the licence for a period of on month. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, modifying the Order of the 4th respondent, by imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on the petitioner for the alleged violation, instead of suspending it’s licence for a period of one month. The penalty, imposed, shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 19.06.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Mandal Revenue Officer Chirala Prakasam District. 2 Joint Collector Ongole 3 Collector, Prakasam District 4 Prl. Secretary to Government of A.P. Home (Genl.A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5.2CCs to 6.2CD copies