K SEETHARAMI REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition are: The seating capacity of Gagan Mahal talkies was reduced from 759 of 630 seats on 2-8-1986. For incorporating the reduced sealing capacity in the 'B' Form licence, the licence had been obtained from the licencee. On verification of licence it was found by the respondents that licencee had interpolated reduction of seats in the licence and he had substituted the figures of 759 by figures 544. A show cause notice was issued to the licencee as to why the licence of the theatre should not be revoked for making the interpolations in the 'B' form licence. The licencee-Writ Petitioner filed his explanation on 9-4-1988 and the authority concerned heard him on 9-5-1988. In his explanation the licencee stated that he sought for reduction of seating capacity from 759 to 544 by an application in the year 1977 itself because certain amendment had been made in Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 by which slab system had been introduced for the theatres in the villages where the population was below 25000. According to the petitioner the amendment in the Entertainment Tax Act had adverse effect on business, therefore he sought for reduction of seating capacity in the year 1977. He further stated that Tax authorities had attached the furniture of the theatre for the realisation of the tax due and therefore he was forced to confine to the seals for which furniture was available. He further stated that there was a dispute between the petitioner and some of the partners and by a Court Order the theatre was given in the possession of a Receiver and he received the 'B' form licence from the Receiver alter the Court case came to an end. The Receiver was one Mr.Purushotham Rao an Advocate. He was examined by the authorities. He stated before the authority that he had nothing to do with the licence. The concerned authority came to the conclusion that the interpolation in the licence was done by the petitioner, after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner and in terms of Section 10(2) of Ihe AP. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 ordered that the licence of the Gagan Mahal be revoked with immediate effect. After this order was passed the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government which was decided on 20/04/1989. The appellate authority after .. stating what had been stated by the petitioner in appeal and what had been stated by the Collector in his letter, without considering the rival contentions, agreed with the remarks of the Collector and held "The Government therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the Licercing authority dated 21-6-1988". The appeal was rejected.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parlies. Counter has not been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made two arguments. He has stated that Section 10(2) of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 is not at all attracted. In the alternative he states that, even if Section 10(2) was attracted, the Collector was not justified in awarding the maximum punishment.