DOMINIC Vs. KOORKANCHERRY PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the licencee of Mary Matha theatre at Kanimangalam. He has been licenced to conduct cinema shows in the theatre. By Ext. P1 the second respondent has threatened, to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for the violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961, for short, THE Entertainments tax Act, to restrain him from exhibiting the cinematographic films and also to cancel the licence issued to him under THE Cinematographic Regulations Act etc. For easy reference relevant part of Ext. P1 notice is extracted hereunder:

(2.) THE petitioner gave Ext. P2 reply to Ext. P1, from where it can be seen that he has denied all the allegations levelled against him. Ext. P2 is dated 10-12-1987. On 11-12-1987 the impugned order, Ext. P3 was passed.

(3.) REGARDING Point No. I it is necessary to understand the content of subsection (2) of S. 10. This sub-section provides that any officer authorised by the local authority in this behalf may enter any place of entertainment while the entertainment is proceeding, and any place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment at any reasonable time, and if satisfied that the provisions of S. 5 are not complied with, by order in writing prevent the further use of such place for the purpose of any entertainment. It is clear from the plain language employed in this sub-section that the officer who can enter any place of entertainment while the entertainment is proceeding or any place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment, must be one who has been authorised by the Local Authority. That without such authorisation the officer cannot enter any place of entertainment is clear from the definition of local authority under S. 2 sub-section (6 ). The power the Local Authority can exercise under this sub-section could be exercised by an officer as well, provided he has been authorised by the Local Authority in that behalf. This is a condition precedent. The question that requires to be considered in this context is, Has the second respondent been authorised by the Local Authority to enter the place where the entertainment is proceeding or to inspect the place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment and conduct the investigation contemplated under the sub-section. A reference in this connection to the pleadings of the parties is relevant Though the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, he has not stated there that he has the specific authorisation within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S. 10 enabling him to enter the premises and conduct the enquiry and take action against the licence. No doubt, he has in Para. 6 stated that "the allegation in Ground No. A that the second respondent is not an authorised officer is incorrect". Except to make such a statement, he has not even asserted that he has been authorised by the Local Authority, the counsel for the petitioner submits. May be, the second respondent has not pleaded his case properly. But that will not take away the effect of Clause. 21 of The Bye-Laws approved by the authority mentioned in sub-section (3) of S. 12 of The Entertainments Act. It reads: as per the definition is, the executive officer. The second respondent being an officer authorised by the Panchayat is competent to enter the premises for the purposes contemplated under subsection (2) of S. 10. The proceedings proposed by Ext. P1 notice therefore is sustainable in law.