T LAXMANNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the licensees of the Paradise Talkies, Secunderabad. They were issued a show cause notice by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad on 10-5-1977 as to why their licence should not be suspended under Section 10(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 on the ground that the petitioners had violated certain conditions of licence and that they were prosecuted and convicted for such violations. The petitioners submitted their explanation. Therefore, the Commissioner by order dated 7-9-1977 rejected the explanation of the petitioners, and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, instead of suspending the licence, imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000/- under section 10(2 A) of the Act.

(2.) Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Government under section 10 (4) of the Act. By memo dated 27-9-1977, the Government directed the petitioners to deposit a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- failing which, it was stated that the appeal was liable to be rejected as not maintainable in law. The petitioners made a representation that the appeal was preferred against the order under section 10 (2-A) imposing a penality and not against the order of suspension or revocation of licence under section 10(2), and, therefore, there was no obligation to deposit the penality as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal. This contention of the petitioners was rejected by the impugned order of the Government dated 21-11-1979. In the impugned order it is stated that sub-section (2) referred to in the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 10 is only a mistake for sub-section 2(A) and, therefore the petitioners were found to deposit the penalty as required by the said proviso before the appeal could be entertained. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 7-9-1977 imposing the penality and also all other consequential orders. They have also challenged the order directing jhe deposit of the penalty before the appeal could be entertained. So far as the merits of the order dated 7-9-1977 of the Commissioner imposing the penality is concerned I do not think I can interfere at this stage as the statutory appeal provided under section 10 (4) has been filed.

(3.) The only question for consideration is whether the petitioners are bound to deposit the penalty before the appeal could be entertained Section 10 (4) provides for an appeal against a decision of the licensing authority revoking or suspending a licence under sub-section (2) or imposing penalty under sub-section 2 (A). The proviso to sub section (4) of section 10 reads as follows :-