AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagadeesan, J.—The Petitioner is the licensee of a permanent cinema theatre viz., ''Krishna Theatre'' in Palanichettipatty. The said theatre
was subjected to surprise inspection by the Sub-Collector, Periyakulam on 27.11,92. At 4.30 P.M. on enquiry the Inspecting Officer found that
the Petitioner had collected excess fare from some of the spectators and 346 persons had occupied in the first class; while the accounts revealed
that only 35 tickets were sold. Apart from this, certain other violations of the licence conditions have also been noticed. The conduct of the licensee
amounted to clear evasion of Entertainment Tax and the Petitioner had compouned the offence by paying Rs. 1,500/- as compounding fee.
On the basis of the compounding of the violations committed by the licensee, the Respondent herein passed an order u/s 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Cinema (Regulation) Act, suspending the C-Form licence for 30 days in his proceedings dated 9.7.93. As against which the present writ petition
has been filed.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that Section 9(2) of the Cinema (Regulation) Act contemplates the issue of show-
cause notice before ever the order of suspension of licence is being made. As the Respondent has failed to issue show-cause notice to the
Petitioner, the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory requirement and on this short ground the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
The Respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the suspension of the C-Form, licence under the impugned proceedings was
passed only on the basis of the admission made by the Petitioner regarding the violation of the licence conditions. The fact that the licensee has paid
the compounding fee and thereby compounded the offence would clearly establish that the Petitioner had violated the conditions of the licence
which consequentially resulted in the suspension of the C-Form licence and as such there is no need to issue any show-cause notice. The show-
cause notice is necessary only if the Petitioner has got any explanation to offer against the proposed action. When the proposed action itself is the
consequence of an admission on the part of the Petitioner, the issue of show-cause notice is unnecessary.
I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. There is no dispute in this case with regard to the surprise inspection made by the
sub-Collector and the violations noticed by the Inspecting Officer. There is no further dispute that the Petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/-
towards compounding fee and compounded the offence i.e., the violations committed by him.
In fact, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of myself and E. Padmanabhan, J. had an occasion to consider the question as to whether any
enquiry is contemplated pursuant to the show-cause notice issued u/s 9(2) of the Cinema Regulation Act; where the show-cause notice is issued on
the basis of the compounding of the offence by the licensee in the case of Muthian v. The Collector, South Arcot Vallalar District W.P.12640/94
etc., dated 11.11.1999). After considering several judgments we have held that when once the licensee had opted to compound the offence, which
means that there exists a pre-existing conviction or order of composition which does not require any further enquiry and it would be sufficient to
issue: a show cause notice as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Cinema (Regulation) Act. But, however, the issue of show-cause
notice do not warrant any further enquiry to be conducted. As the licensees themselves had concedingly admitted the irregularities by compounding
the offences, nothing more is required to hold that the licensees or their managers or agents or attorneys have violated the licensing conditions and
no further enquiry is warranted for an action being taken u/s 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulations) Act and hence the authorities are
justified in passing an order after issuing the show-cause notice.
Of course, the cas:e before the Division Bench were concerning with the orders of suspension of C-Forrn licence after issue of show-cause
notice as contemplated u/s 9(2) of the said. But in this case admittedly no show-cause notice has been issued before ever the impugned order of
suspension of C-Form licence. Had the Petitioner been served with the show-cause notice, on the basis of the Division Bench Judgment, the Writ
Petition could have been dismissed. As no show-cause notice was issued, the additional question as to whether any show-cause notice itself is
necessary has to be considered in this case.
As already pointed out, when the licensees have admitted their guilt and compounded the offences without any further enquiry, the order u/s 9(
1) of the Cinema Regulation Act i.e., suspending or cancelling the C-Form licence can be made. When that be the case, whether the non-issue of
show-cause notice as contemplated u/s 9(2) of the said Act would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. This Court opines that it will
not; because when the authority u/s 9(1) of the said Act is empowered to suspend or cancel the C-Form licence, the issue of show-cause notice is
of no consequence. The issue of Show-cause will not confer any right on the licensee to give any explanation afresh enabling the authority to hold a
fresh enquiry. When the cancellation of the licence is based on the mere compounding of the offence by the licensee and when no further enquiry
had been contemplated, the issue of show-cause notice will be only an empty formality to be complied with.
In fact, the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Aroot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution Vs. The
Educational Appellate Tribunal and Another, has held as follows.
Giving of opportunity or an enquiry of course is a check and balance concept that no one''s right be taken away without giving him/her opportunity
or without enquiry in a given case or where the statute requires. But this cannot be in a case where allegation and charges are admitted and no
possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations?.... In a case where the facts
are almost admitted, the case reveals itself and is apparent on the face of the record, and inspite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is
forthcoming as in the present case, it would not be a fit case to interfere with the termination order.
So the principle of issue of show-cause notice is necessary in order to give an opportunity to the aggrieved to submit the explanation before ever
any final order is to be passed. But when the final order is to be passed is on the basis of the admission of the aggrieved himself, then there is no
need to issue any show-cause notice, as the final order is based only on the admission made by the aggrieved and not by any other fresh material
within the knowledge of the punishing authority. Based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above case, there is absolutely no
necessity to issue the show-cause notice as contemplated u/s 9(2) of the said Act for the completion of the empty formality before ever any order
is to be passed u/s 9(1) of the said Act; where such order is based on the compounding of the offences or violations by the licensee. Hence the
non-issue of the show-cause notice by ''the Respondent before ever the impugned order of suspension was passed will not vitiate the impugned
order either on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise. Hence there is absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition.
However, taking into consideration of the lapse of time of more than six years, I am of the view that the period of suspension of ''C Form
licence of the Petitioner can be reduced to ten days and accordingly reduced. with the above modification with regard to the period of suspension,
the Writ Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.