M MADHAVAN Vs. KILLANNOOR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P. is filed to quash Ext. P3, an order dated 11-2-1987, passed by the Executive Officer, Killannoor Panchayat under S.10(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 (Act 20 of 1961). It is the claim of the petitioner's counsel that during the days on 20,21,24,25,30 and 31 of October, 1987 and 6-11-1987, a special squad of Officers authorised by the Director of Panchayats inspected the petitioner's theatre, known as Abilash Theatre, Killannoor, and submitted a report to the second respondent The second respondent, on the basis of this report, issued a show cause notice dated 1-12-1987, marked as Ext. P1, and though Ext. P2 reply dated 3-12-1987, was given without complying with the requirements of S.10 of the Act an order was straightway passed as Ext. P3 on 11-12-1987 prohibiting exhibition of films in the theatre. Ext. P3 order passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, and without giving him a hearing, is bad in law and hence Ext. P3 should be quashed. It is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that under S.9 of the Act only the officer authorised by the local authority is entitled to conduct an inspection and in the present case as the inspection was conducted by a special squad of officers authorised by the Director of Panchayats, the very inspection which formed the basis of action is invalid and illegal.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, no counter affidavit was filed. But Shri. K.P. Dandapani, represented to the court that as the two questions raised are purely legal questions, he would argue the matter on the basis of law. Shri. Dandapani contends that die Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 was amended by Act 14 of 1987, and as a result of the amendment, apart from the officer authorised by the local authority, the officers authorised by the Director of Panchayats are also entitled to conduct inspection. He places reliance upon the amended provisions of S.9(1), and he also places reliance upon notification No. C5-22002/87 dated 25-8-1987. He further contends that S.10(2) does not contemplate giving a personal hearing, and it only contemplates giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. He places reliance upon a Division Beach decision of this Court in Executive Officer v. Damodharan, 1965 KLT 967 .

(3.) In reply to the arguments of the respondents' counsel, Shri. P.V. Ayyappan contends that even if by virtue of the amendment of the Act, the special squad officers are authorised to inspect, even then, Ext. P3 order is vitiated as the executive authority did not give an opportunity for personal hearing for the petitioner, and he relies upon a decision reported in Dominic v. Koorkancherry Panchayat, 1989 (2) KLT 752 .