S. Yesodha Proprietrix Dhanam Theatre Vadugasathu vs The Collector and The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This is a writ petition challenging the order dated 15-6-1993 by which, the concerned authority has suspended the

licence for three days. Before understanding the contentions raised, some facts would be necessary.

Petitioner owns a theatre under licence issued under the Cinema Regulation Act, which theatre was inspected suddenly on 7-1-1993 and it was

found that as many as 95 persons wee not having the tickets and that the daily collection report was also not maintained. Therefore, a show cause

notice came to be issued on 17-2-1993 on the ground that the Petitioner had breached Rule 32(f) of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu

Entertainment Act. This was accepted and Rs. 500/- was paid as a ""Compounding fees"" perhaps u/s 15 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Act.

Thereafter, a show cause notice came to be issued u/s 9(l) of the Cinema Regulation Act, asking the Petitioner the reasons as to why her licence

should not be suspended. The Petitioner gave her explanation but, the authorities slapped three days closure of the Petitioner''s theatre, which

order is in challenge before me. Though the impugned order is in Tamil, the Learned Counsel has very fairly explained the whole order to me.

Learned Counsel says that for taking an action u/s 9(l) of the Cinema Regulations Act, it is essential that there has to be a ""conviction "" or, as the

case may be, ""compounding"" u/s 15 of the Act. Learned Counsel says that there was never such a conviction. Learned Counsel is absolutely right

there that the Petitioner was never convicted. However, Section 9 of the cinema Regulations Act does not stop there. Section 9 also says mat

where the offences under the Act are permitted to be compounded u/s 15 even then, Section 9(l) would be attracted. Here the contention of the

Learned Counsel is that there was no ""compounding"" at all as it was not for the offence covered u/s 14 of the Act I am afraid the Learned Counsel

is not right there. Section 14 specifically says that it is an offence to contravene any of the provisions of the Act, which would also mean the breach

of the rules framed under the Act. The language of Section l4(l)(b)(ii) of the Act is very clear. Therefore, it is obvious that the Petitioner had

contravened Rule 32(f) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Rules and thereafter proceeded to pay the penalty for compounding the same u/s 15(b) of

the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act. If that is so, there is a complete answer to the argument of the Learned Counsel. It is clear that the action

taken u/s 9 of the Act is perfectly valid and that is precisely what has been stated in the impugned order. The Learned Counsel, however says that

considering the time-gap, I should take slightly lenient view regarding the closure of Petitioner''s theatre for three days. In fact, three days closure

by itself was a very lenient punishment. However, I will not go into that question now. I am afraid I cannot take any other view as the view taken

by the authority is perfectly legal and justifiable.

The writ petition has no merits. It is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. No. of 1993 is closed.