VENTRAPRAGADA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been running an amusement park under the name and style of "Variety Amusement Park" at Pithapuram in East Godavari District, after having obtained a licence therefor from the Commissioner and Special Officer of the Municipality (Second Respondent) under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act., 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.). The licence was originally issued for three months on 21-12-1973. The licence was renewed by the same respondent for a further period of three months. The petitioner was permitted under the licence to conduct dramas, dances, music performances and skill games viz., darts and shooting galleries. However, a show cause notice dated 28-4-1974 was issued by the District Magistrate Ease Godavari (First respondent ) to show cause why the licence of 21st of December, 1973, issued by the Second respondent and later renewed by him should not be cancelled under Section 12 of the Act. with immediate effect. The ground indicated in the show cause notice for the proposed cancellation was contravention of instructions of the Government issued in G. O. Ms. 6574 Government issued in G. O. Ms. 6574 dated 21-12-1939 as amended in G. O. Ms. 1951 dated 13-7-1958, while issuing the licence. Though an explanation was sent up by the petitioner, the First respondent, purporting to Act. under Section 12 of the Act., revoked the licence and its renewal by his proceedings dated 10/05/1974. Following up the said order the Second respondent also issued consequential orders directing the petitioner to stop the running of amusement park. This writ petition has been filed for quashing these orders of the First and Second respondents.

(2.) The challenge against the two orders are founded on the following arguments. 1. There is no power in the First respondent to revoke the licence granted by the Second respondent who is the competent authority, under Section 9 of the Act. 2. The licence granted on 21-12-1973 became final and in fact it was renewed. The First respondent cannot purport to revise such an order, acting under Section 12. 3. In any case, the power under Section 12 can be exercised only if the requirements of Section 9 exist and those requirements are not present in the present case. 4. The Act. and the rules made thereunder do not contain a list of prohibited games. In the absence of such a provision, a mere administrative instruction or direction by the Government cannot entail revocation. Only by a provision in the Act. itself or through rules, prohibited games in amusement parks can be prescribed and not under administrative instructions. 5. The finding in the order is based on no evidence and is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 6. The only ground mentioned in the show cause notice is contravention of the orders of the Government. The order of cancellation, however, is based not only on the ground of contravention of the instructions contained in the two G. Os. but also on the ground that there was side betting. The petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity to meet this latter charge. 7. By the date of revocation there was only an allegation of side betting and there was no proof thereof. The criminal case filed against the petitioner in regard to side betting was thrown out by the judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram.

(3.) Broadly analysed these contentions though seven in number, come under two categories. The first four relate to the power of the First respondent who revoked the licence on the ground of the original licence not being in accordance with the instructions given by the Government in the two impugned G. Os. The other three arguments relate to the failure of the First respondent to give the petitioner an adequate opportunity to meet the allegation of side betting.