SWAMY TALKIES DOMAKONDA V DOMAKONDA MANDAL NIZAMABAD DISTRICT Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR AND LICENSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st Respondent-Licensing Authority, under which a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed for the alleged violation of the conditions of Licence and the Petitioner seeking declaration that the said impugned order is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and for a consequential order setting aside the impugned proceedings.

(2.) The Petitioner is carrying on the business of running a cinema theatre, having obtained a valid licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. It is stated that while so the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 13.3.1992 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- should not be imposed for violation of Section 4(5) of the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act and also Condition 20 of the Item 12 of Form-B Licence. In response to the said notice, the Petitioner submitted its explanation dated 10.4.1992 stating that the Petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the Act or the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act or any of the Conditions of Licence. Thereafter, the 1 st Respondent, after hearing the Petitioner, passed orders imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. It is further stated by the Petitioner that there is a revision of rates of admission as well as the seating capacity, which came into effect only from 24.3.1992, but not from any earlier date. A written explanation also said to have been submitted to the Entertainment Tax Officer, Kama Reddy with reference to the said fact. But, however, according to the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent, who enquired into the matter, without properly verifying the facts, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was collecting Rs.4-00 for admission into the balcony, while showing the collection at Rs.3-00 to the Entertainment Tax Officer. The said report of the 3rd Respondent is only one sided. Even with reference to the violation of the Conditions of Licence, it was contended that there is no material for the Respondents to come to that conclusion. Ultimately it is stated that the fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed is too excessive and therefore, liable to be quashed.

(3.) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that under the provisions of the Act if the Petitioner has committed any offence, it has to be dealt with under Section 9 of the Act for which only a Criminal Court having jurisdiction alone is competent and no criminal complaint was filed and no Criminal Court has convicted the Petitioner and therefore, the imposition of fine by the Licensing Authority is illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also contended that for taking any action under the provisions of the Act by the Licensing Authority, conviction is a must under Section 9 and in the absence of any such conviction, the authority has no right or power to impose penalty or any other punishment. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nirmal Talkies, Adoni v. District Revenue Officer, 1984 Crl. LJ 929, wherein it was held that with reference to an offence under Section 9, it can be tried and penalty imposed only by Criminal Court, and the Licensing or the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction. To the same effect is the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Liberty Cinema v. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, 1987 (1) L.S. 62, wherein it was held that imposing a penalty under Section 9, the Commissioner of Police, who has imposed punishment, has no jurisdiction and it is only the Judicial First Class Magistrate competent to try the offence. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that the Licensing Authority has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.