KHAJA RAZUDDIN Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR AND LICENSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed as long back as in October 1988, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dt. 26-10-1988 passed by the respondent-joint Collector revoking the licence granted to him to exhibit the Cinemas in exercise of power u/s 10(2)(b) of A.P. Cinemas Regulation Act. The impugned action was taken on the ground that the petitioner had fallen into heavy arrears of entertainment tax and the arrears were not cleared despite the conditional orders passed by the High Court in various writ petitions. The respondent who is the licencing authority under the Act therefore concluded that the petitioner violated Condition No. 46 of the B Form Licence.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is still in arrears. This Court granted interim direction permitting the petitioner to exhibit the films on condition of payment of Rs. 50,000/-. It is not known whether the petitioner paid that amount. It is also not known whether the petitioner's original licence had expired or renewal granted. Be .that as it may, irrespective of the subsequen developments, we would like to decide the writ petition on merits.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the power u/s 10(2)(b) ought not to have been exercised by the respondent without there being a finding by a Court of law that the licencee committed an offence of non-payment of tax under the Act. Sec. 10(2)(b) enables the licencing authority to revoke the licence if the licencee has without reasonable cause failed to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or any of the conditions or restrictions, subject to which the licence has been granted. Condition No. 46 of the licence enjoins that "the liencee shall not commit any offence punishable under A.P. Entertainment Tax Act." Failure to pay tax due within the prescribed time is an offence for which punishment is provided under Section 14 of the said Act. On conviction, the Magistrate can impose a fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- without prejudice to his liability to pay the tax. The learned Counsel submits that unless the petitioner is convicted after the Magistrate duly finds himguilryof the offence, the licencing authority cannot assume that an offence has been committed under the A.F. E.T. Act- We do not find any force in this contention,