KAMATCHI THEATRE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25.3.1999 in W.P. Nos. 20224, 12640 of 1994 and 228 of 1996 pointed out that there is cONflict of views and, therefore, referred the above writ petitiONs to be posted before a DivisiON Bench to resolve the cONflict and as the matter is of recurring nature involving/important questiONs of law ON the interpretatiON of SectiON 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (RegulatiONs) Act.

(2.) THE above batch of writ petitions came to be posted before this Bench as per the orders of the Hon'ble THE Acting Chief Justice. I - Order of Reference by N. V. Balasubramanian, J.

(3.) IN this case, it is necessary to refer some earlier decisions of this Court on mis aspect. IN the case of P. Muthalagu v. The Collector of Tiruchirappalli & others (1972 II MLJ 42), T. Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) has held that the definition of "proprietor" under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act is wide enough to take the delinquency of either the proprietor or the Manager or both into consideration. S.S. Subramani, J. in W.P. No. 20634 of 1998 (between Jeevan Theatre rep. by its Licensee, Bodinayakanur, Teni Dist. and The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt. Home (Cinemas) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai -9 & others) by judgment dated 4.1.1999 has also held that where a Manager of a theatre has even admitted that higher rates were collected from the patrons, such statement of the Manager would constitute a material to suspend the licence. Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) in an unreported decision in W.P. No. 601 of 1971 (between M.D. Appaswamy and The Board of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras) by judgment dated 19.2.1971 has also held that the statutory authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales - tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Regulation Act cannot act independently and the learned Judge has specifically rejected the contention that the imposition of punishment under one of the Acts is not a ground to cancel the penalty under another Act. A Division Bench of this court in the case of The Licensee, Sangeetha Theatre, Vaniyambadi etc. & others v. The Appellate Authority, etc. & 2 others (1992 - 2 - L.A. 630) has also held that the powers available under Section 9(1) arid (2) of the Cinemas Regulation Act can be exercised by the Licensing Authority under two different circumstances to deal with distinct categories of cases. D. Raju, J. (as His Lordship then was) in an unreported decision in W.P. No. 3 of 1992 (between Krishna Theatre, by its Licensee, Vellore and The Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner I of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras -5& Another) by judgment dated 6.1.1992 has held that Section 9(1) deals with a distinct and separate category other than those covered by section 9(2) of the Act and there is a vital difference between the nature and clauses of cases that falls for being proceeded against under Section 9(1) on the one hand and Section 9(2) on the other. Since there is a conflict of views, I am of the view that the matter should be resolved by a Division Bench of this Court. Further, the matter is of recurring nature and important question of law are involved on the interpretation of Section 9(1) of the Cinemas Regulation Act. IN some of the writ petitions, some other points are also raised and in my view, those points can be decided along with the main question.