SUBASH CHANDRA PALE Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner calls in question legality of orders passed by authorities functioning under Orissa Cinema Regulation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Orissa Cinema Regulation Rules, 1964 (in short 'the Rules').

(2.) BACKDROP in which the writ application has been filed is essentially as follows : Petitioner was granted licence No. 2 of 1992 to run a video hall. By notices dated 2 -8 -1994 and 2 -9 -1994, petitioner was required to show cause as to why his licence shall not be revoked/cancelled. Petitioner submitted his replies. The District Magistrate, Khondmal (O. P. No. 2) on the basis of a report purported to have been given by the Sub -Collector, Balliguda, did not accept prayer for renewal. An appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (S. D.), Orissa, Berhampur (in short the 'R. D. C') who remanded the matter to the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned order after grant of opportunity to the petitioner. After re -hearing, District Magistrate was of the view that petitioner was not eligible to hold the licence in view of the report of S. D. M. and Sub -Collector and reiterated order of his predecessor. An appeal before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner did not yield any result.

(3.) POWER of revocation is given under Section 8 of the Act, Revocation can be done by licensing authority under two circumstances, namely, (a) whether the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence under Section 7 of Cinematograph Act, 1952 (in short the 'Cinematograph Act') or under Section 7 of the Act, Section 7 of the Act, deals with penalties for contravention of the Act, Sections 7 and 8 read as follows : 'Section 7. Penalties for contravention of this Act - -If the owner or person in charge of a cinema uses the same or allows it to be used or if the owner or occupier of any place permits that place to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder or of the conditions and restrictions upon or subject to which any licence has been granted under this Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and in the case of continuing offence, with a further line which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues. 'Section 8, Power to revoke licence : Where the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 XXXVI of 1952) or under Section 7 of this Act, the licence may be revoked by the licensing authority.' It is, therefore, clear that in cider to revoke a licence, conviction under Section 7 of either the Act or the Cinematograph Act is a precondition. If there is no such conviction, revocation cannot be done. Records produced before us do not reveal that there was any conviction under Section 7 of either of the Acts, referred to above. Therefore, the licence could not have been revoked. On that score, the petitioner is bound to succeed.