MANIS THEATRE REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. N. JAGANNATHAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (CINEMA) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER , non observance of the principle, "Audi Alteram Partem", a fundamental maxim of the concept of "natural justice," would vitiate an order made by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act? A procedure, unknown to law, being followed for years, is put under challenge in this writ petition by the aggrieved.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Proprietor of a cinema theatre known as "M/s. Mani's Theatre" at Peelamedu, Coimbatore. On 10.11.2007, according to the respondents, a surprise inspection was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore during which, it was found that the petitioner had sold tickets for higher rates than the prescribed rates. The petitioner is alleged to have given a statement admitting his guilt. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted a report in this regard to the third respondent for necessary action as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A show cause notice was issued by the third respondent to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him to suspend the licence for which, denying the allegations, the petitioner submitted an explanation. Rejecting the same, by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 54502/2007/U2 dated 20.12.2007, the District Collector, Coimbatore imposed a punishment of suspension of licence for a period of seven days.

(3.) THOUGH several grounds have been raised, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent without following the principles of natural justice and without following the due process of law as provided in the Act itself, inasmuch as the revision petition was heard by an Additional Secretary in the Department whereas, the impugned order was passed by the Principal Secretary to Government. He would submit that this procedure is illegal and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.