Karmegam Theatre v. The Secretary to Government, Home (Cinema) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai –

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.04.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHAW.P.No.3062 of 2001W.M.P.No.4217 of 2001Karmegam Theatre,Rep. by its Proprietor,Mr.Udayakumar,Karmegam Illam, Karmegam Theatre Road,Vellakoil – 638 111. ..PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Cinema) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2. The Joint Commissioner, Cinema, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.3. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode. ..RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in G.O.(D) No.55 Home (Cinema-2) Department dated 17.01.2001 passed by thefirst respondent herein and quash the same and set aside thepunishment of suspension of 7 days of C-Form licence of thepetitioner theatre.For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.KalaiselvanFor Respondents : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Govt. AdvocateO R D E RThe petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking forthe relief of quashing the proceedings of the first respondent inG.O.(D) No.55 Home (Cinema-2) Department dated 17.01.2001 and settingaside the punishment of suspension of C-Form licence of thepetitioner theatre for a period of 7 days .2.1. The petitioner is the Cinema Theatre functioning under thename and style as “Karmegam Theatre” and it is represented by its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proprietor. The inspecting authority under the Tamil Nadu CinemasRegulation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) inspectedthe petitioner Theatre on 30.12.1999 and alleged to have found thefollowing irregularities :(a)Electrician was not present at the time of inspection,violation of Sec.74(2) of the Act ;(b)Toilets have not been maintained properly, violation of Sec.55(1) of the Act ;(c)Pesticides were not sprayed in the theatre, violation of Sec.86(6) of the Act ;(d)Lightning rods not installed, violation of Sec.74(a) of theAct;(e)Exit doors was not closed at the time of inspection, violationof Sec.83(2) of the Act ; and(f)Licensee collected additional amount of Rs.2/- from the viewersfor fourteen tickets ; 2.2 Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued by the thirdrespondent to the petitioner as contemplated under the Act and thepetitioner sent a reply dated 20.01.2000 denying the allegations asfalse. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondentwithout conducting proper enquiry and without examining a singlewitness held that the charges are proved and awarded the punishmentof suspension of ‘C’ Form Licence for a period of 15 days. Againstthe said order the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.110 of2000 before the second respondent herein and the second respondentreduced the punishment to 7 days by order dated 28.02.2000 andagainst the said order the petitioner preferred a revision before thefirst respondent and the first respondent passed the impugned orderdated 17.01.2001 under G.O.(D) No.55 Home (Cinema-2) Departmentconfirming the punishment awarded by the second respondent herein andthe said order is under challenge in this writ petition.3. Mr.A.E.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel for the petitionervehemently contended that the respondents have not followed theprocedure contemplated under the Act by giving reasonable opportunityto the petitioner to put forth his objections and contentions. It iscontended that the respondents placed reliance on the statementsrecorded from the viewers of the Cinema behind the back of thepetitioner and none of the viewers have been examined during thecourse of conducting the enquiry by the third respondent. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner would further contend that the thirdrespondent placed reliance on the report submitted by the RevenueDivisional Officer (for short, R.D.O.), but the said report was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ furnished to the petitioner herein and as such the respondents passedthe said order in violation of principles of natural justice. It iscontended that the second respondent dismissed the appeal withoutassigning any valid reason merely stating that the inspecting officerhas personally found the irregularities and the Booking Clerk of theTheatre, who was present at the time of inspection, accepted theirregularities. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the second respondent merely placed reliance on the statementsrecorded behind the back of the petitioner. It is contended that thefirst respondent also passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2001without assigning any reason again placing reliance on the reportsubmitted by the inspecting officer as well as the statementsrecorded from the viewers of the cinema Theatre behind the back ofthe petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned ordersare liable to be set aside.4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate contended that thereis no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by therespondents. It is contended that the petitioner was givenopportunity to put forth his objections by serving the show-causenotice and his objections were considered by the respondents and assuch there is absolutely no violation of principles of naturaljustice. The learned Government Advocate would further contend thatthe respondents have given reasons for their conclusions and as suchit cannot be stated that such orders are passed without any validreasons. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forwardby either side and also perused the materials available on recordincluding the orders passed by the respondents herein.6. A perusal of the materials available on record discloses thatthe inspecting officer during his inspection in the petitionerTheatre said to have been found certain irregularities as statedearlier. Now the question arises for the consideration of this Courtis to the effect that whether the authorities concerned, namely, therespondents herein have followed the procedure contemplated under theprovisions of the Act. 7. Before proceeding to consider the said question, it isrelevant to refer the provision under Section 9(B)(1)(2) of the Actwhich reads hereunder :“9-B. Powers of Revision by Government - (1) TheGovernment may, on their own motion or on applicationcall for and examine the record of the appellateauthority in respect of any proceeding under section 5(7)or section 9-A (1) to satisfy themselves as to thelegality of such proceedings or the correctness, legalityor propriety of any decision passed or order made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therein ; and , if in any case, it appears to theGovernment that any such proceedings, decision or ordershould be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted forreconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly :Provided that every application to the Governmentfor the exercise of the powers under this section shallbe preferred within such time as may be prescribed andshall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.(2) No order prejudicial to any person shall bepassed under sub-section (1) unless such person has beengiven an opportunity of making his representations.”A reading of the above said provision makes it crystal clear that thesaid provision itself mandates that before passing any order againstany individual, such person shall be given an opportunity of makinghis objections and contentions as it goes without saying that theauthorities shall give a reasonable opportunity to the personsagainst whom an adverse order would be passed. 8. There is no doubt that it is the quasi judicial function ofthe respondents to conduct enquiry by giving reasonable opportunityto the person concerned and those orders should be on merits and inaccordance with law. Therefore, it is for the authorities to followaudi alteram partem meticulously as they have been empowered underthe Statutes with certain quasi-judicial powers. It is needless tostate that the power of the first respondent, who is a revisionalauthority under the Act, is a quasi judicial power and as such thesaid authority should follow the principles of natural justice byaffording effective and reasonable opportunities to the parties andafter affording such opportunities to the respective parties, therevisional authority is expected to pass a speaking order reflectingapplication of mind to the materials available on record.9. Now coming to the case on hand, it is seen that theinspecting officer is the R.D.O. and after inspection he hassubmitted his report to the third respondent and the third respondentpassed the order dated 28.02.2000 holding that the charges are provedand awarded punishment of suspension of Form ‘C’ licence for a periodof 15 days. A perusal of the said order discloses that the thirdrespondent by placing reliance on the report submitted by the R.D.O.and by placing reliance on the statements said to have been recordedby the R.D.O. during the course of his inspection from the viewers ofthe Cinema arrived at the conclusion that the charges are provedagainst the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that neither thesaid report of the R.D.O. was served on the petitioner nor the so-called statements said to have been recorded by the R.D.O. duringinspection of the Theatre in the presence of the petitioner.Therefore, the third respondent by merely placing reliance on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.D.O. report and the statements recorded behind the back of thepetitioner held that the charges are proved. On appeal, theappellate authority, namely, the second respondent herein, passed anorder dated 28.08.2000 again placing reliance on the report of theinspecting officer/R.D.O. and on the statements said to have beenrecorded by the inspecting officer behind the back of the petitionerherein holding that the irregularities noticed by the inspectingOfficer were proved beyond doubt and only modified the order byreducing the punishment of suspension of ‘C’ Form Licence from 15days to 7 days. Lastly, the revisional authority passed the impugnedorder - a cryptic and non-speaking order, dated 17.01.2002 holdingthat the charges against the petitioner are proved on the basis ofthe inspection report as well as on the basis of the statementsrecorded from the viewers of the cinema behind the back of thepetitioner. 10. This Court is constrained to state that the said impugnedorder is bereft of any reasons except holding arbitrarily andmechanically that the charges were proved against the petitioner onthe basis of the inspection report and the statements recorded fromthe viewers as stated above. A reading of the said order disclosesthat the said order is nothing but the re-production of theconclusions arrived at by the third and second respondents throughtheir orders and the said order does not reflect the application ofmind of the revisional authority. Therefore, this Court has nohesitation to hold that the entire proceedings is vitiated byflagrant violation of principles of natural justice and constrainedto allow this writ petition.11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugnedorder of the first respondent passed in G.O.(D) No.55 Home (Cinema-2)Department dated 17.01.2001 is hereby quashed. This Court isconstrained to remit the matter to the third respondent for freshdisposal by giving effective and reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner to put forth his contentions and objections by followingthe procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and topass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrargg https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Cinema) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2. The Joint Commissioner, Cinema, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.3. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. A.E. Kalaiselvam, Advocate. S.R.No.14037. W.P.No.3062 of 2001W.M.P.No.4217 of 2001GV (CO)GSK 22.04.2009.