GRACYKUTTY MAMMEN Vs. CHENGANNUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Identical questions arise for consideration in these Original Petitions, filed against the same lower authority, the Chengannur Municipal Council. So I consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner in O.P. 10175/89 is the proprietor of Theatre 'Chippy Movies', Chengannur. While Matinee show was in progress on 12-9-1989, the Chairman of the Municipality accompanied by the Chairman of the Standing Committee visited the theatre. At that time daily collection register was not completed. They also found extra chairs placed in the balcony and first class. Thereupon Ext. P1 notice dated 20-9-1989 was issued calling upon them to show cause why action should not be taken for the above violations. In compliance with that notice, petitioner filed Ext. P2 reply. Without affording any further opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate his objections and without hearing him, Exhibit P3 order dated 30-11-1989 was served directing him to close down the theatre with effect from 4-12-1989. That order is under challenge..

(3.) Petitioner in O.P. 10212/19S9 is the proprietor of 'Grace Movies', a film theatre at Chengannur. The Chairman of the Municipality accompanied by the Chairman of the Standing Committee visited the theatre at 3.55 p.m. on 12-9-1989. Even though the Matinee show started at 2.45 p.m., the daily collection register was not closed at the time of their visit. So notice, Ext. P1 dated 20-9-1989 was served on the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken for the violation of the conditions of the licence. Petitioner filed Exhibit P2 explanation denying the allegations. Without affording further opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the contentions raised in the objection and without hearing her, Exhibit P3 order dated 30-10-1989 was issued directing her to close down the theatre with effect from 4-12-19898. That order is under challenge.