C SHIVANNA GOUD Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order No. RBR/ENT/76-77 dated 17-6-1976 of the District Magistrate Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the D.M.) (Annexure-C).

(2.) Among others, the petitioner is the owner of a touring cinema situated in Gangavati town, Raichur Dist. licensed under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1964) and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules). Some time prior to 14-5-1976, the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koppal, inspected the said touring talkies and reported to the D. M. certain omissions and commissions in the running of the same. On receipt of the said report, the D.M. in notice No. RBR/ENT/30/ 76-77 dated 21-5-1916 (Annexure-A) called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence issued to him under the Act, should not be cancelled on the grounds set therein, to which the petitioner filed his reply admitting certain facts but denying certain other facts, requesting him to drop the proceedings. On a consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, the D. M., apparently holding that every one of the grounds stated in the show cause notice as proved, has made the following order: "No RBR/ENT/76-77 dated 17-6-76. The Cinema licence of Amar Talkies, Gangavati is hereby suspended for the reasons shown in the preamble as required under S. 17(1) of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971. The proprietor is required to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 as required under S. 16 of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act 1964 for the contravention of the provision of S. 11 of the said Act. Besides, he is also required to pay the R. 50 amount of Rs. 3,09,550-50 collection made by him in respect of the un-permitted seats from 31-5-1975 to 31-5-76. This amount has been worked out presuming that he exhibited every day three houseful shows. Sd/ Dist. Magistrate and Deputy Commr., Raichur "

(3.) The petitioner has asserted before the D.M. made his order, that he was not prosecuted before a criminal Court for violations of the provisions referred to in S. 17 of the Act, much less there has been any conviction against him thereto. Apart from this, the petitioner has also urged various other grounds against the impugned order. In the statement of objections the respondent does not dispute the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner. But, still the respondent has sought to sustain his action under clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the license granted to the petitioner.