The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent herein passed in G.O.(D)No.553, Home (Cinema-2) Department, dated 02.07.2001, with a prayer to quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the licensee of a cinema theatre under the name and style as "Duraisamy Paradise Theatre" at Bargur town. The Deputy Tahsildar, Krishnagiri, inspected the Theatre of the petitioner on 08.11.1999 and submitted a report to the third respondent alleging that the petitioner committed certain irregularities and thereby contravened the provision under Rule 83(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with the show-cause notice for which the petitioner has given an explanation dated 23.12.1999 denying the allegation. The petitioner further submitted that after her explanation, the third respondent herein had suspended "C" Form license of the theatre for a period of one year for the alleged contravention of Rule 83(1)(a) of the Rules by his order dated 09.01.2000 in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.C1/96057/99. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Cinema Appeal No.58 of 2000 and the appellate authority partly allowed the said appeal by order dated 23.08.2000 reducing the period of suspension from one year to a period of three months. Being aggrieved against such order, the petitioner also preferred a revision before the first respondent herein and the first respondent further reduced the period of suspension of "C" Form license of the theatre of the petitioner to a period of one month by the order dated 02.07.2001 in G.O.(D) No.553 Home (Cinemas-2) Department. Being aggrieved against such order, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.
3. Mr.D.Sivakumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order was passed by the authorities arbitrarily and mechanically ignoring the explanation given by the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth her case and the authorities, namely, the respondents herein simply overlooked and brushed aside the objections and explanations given by the petitioner herein. It is further contended that the authorities placed reliance on the statement of the manager of the petitioner, which obtained behind the back of the petitioner in respect of the alleged contravention of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the inspecting officer claimed to have verified the daily collection register and appended his signature to the same, but no entry was made about the alleged violation and as such, the allegation that excess number of viewers were present with reference to the daily collection register is totally contrary to the materials available on record. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements of certain viewers at the theatre have been recorded behind the back of the petitioner and the said witnesses have not been examined by the Enquiry authority, namely, the third respondent herein.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner was given enough opportunity as admittedly show-cause notice was served on her and she has also submitted her explanation and those explanation were perused and considered by the respondents while passing the impugned orders. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the statements recorded from the viewers, the petitioner could have very well called for examination of those witnesses at the time of enquiry. It is contended that the charge levelled against the petitioner is a serious one as the petitioner alleged to have accommodated more number of viewers with reference to the numbers mentioned in the daily collection register and thereby causing loss of revenue to the Government by way of tax. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the impugned orders are not liable to be set aside.
5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record including the impugned orders passed by the respondents herein.
6. A perusal of the records discloses that the petitioner is a licensee of a theatre under the name and style as "Duraisamy Paradise Theatre". The following charge was made against the petitioner, namely, with reference to the daily collection register excess number of viewers were accommodated in various classes, namely, in the Balcony class instead of 17 viewers mentioned in the daily collection register, 76 viewers were admitted ; in the first class instead of 55 viewers mentioned in the daily collection register, 62 viewers were admitted and in the second class as against 76 viewers mentioned in the daily collection register, 82 viewers were admitted and as such there was a violation of Rule 83(1)(a) of the Rules. For the contravention of the said rules, the third respondent herein, namely, the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, inflicted the punishment of suspending the 'C' Form license of the petitioner's theatre for a period of one year under Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955.
7. Before proceeding to consider the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to refer the provision under Rule 83(1)(a) of the Rules which reads hereunder :
"83(1)(a). The licensing authority shall fix the actual number of persons to be admitted to each class of accommodation provided in the auditorium. The number shall be arrived at by calculating at the rate of 20 persons per 10 sq. metrs. of floor area in respect of that portion of auditorium which is provided with chairs having backs and arms, and at the rate of 25 persons per 10 sq.metrs. of floor area in respect of any other class of accommodation.
(Provided that not less than ten percent of the total seat in the auditorium shall be reserved for the lowest class.)"
A reading of the above said provision makes it clear that the licensing authority shall fix the actual number of persons to be admitted in the theatre for each class of accommodation by calculating at the rate of 20 persons per 10 sq. metrs. of floor area. Therefore, the said provision deals only in respect of fixing the actual number of viewers to be admitted in a theatre depending upon its built up area. It is pertinent to note Rule 83(1)(b) of the Rule which reads hereunder :
"(b) In calculating the area under clause (a), the area of the entrances, the passages, gangways, the stage, the staircases and all places to which the public are not admitted shall be excluded, but no part of the auditorium from which a person can watch the exhibition of films shall be excluded."
8. As per the above said provision, it is made clear that while calculating the area as per clause (a), the area of the entrances, the passages, gangways, the stage, the staircases and all places to which the public are not admitted are to be excluded except the part of auditorium from which a person can watch the exhibition of films. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the provisions under Rule 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules deal with the number of persons to be admitted in each class of accommodation in the auditorium to watch the exhibition of films. But as far as the case on hand is concerned, the charge is in respect of variation between the daily collection register and the actual number of viewers admitted at the time of inspection by the inspecting officer. The respondents even in the counter affidavit filed before this Court have specifically stated in paragraph 2 about the charge to the effect that "the management has admitted more number of viewers than the number of viewers shown to have been admitted in the daily collection register". There is no charge to the effect that the petitioner admitted the persons/viewers over and above the actual number of persons fixed by the licensing authority and as such the provision under Rule 83(1)(a) of the Rules not at all attracted in the instant case. Therefore, it is clear that the third respondent arbitrarily, mechanically and without application of mind passed the original order dated 09.01.2000 suspending the 'C' Form licence of the theatre of the petiitoner for a period of one year.
9. There are other infirmities also found in the original order dated 09.01.2000 passed by the third respondent. A perusal of the said order discloses that the petitioner sought for furnishing the statements recorded from the Manager and others at the theatre on 08.11.1999. But the reading of the entire order reveals that such request made by the petitioner was not acted upon and as a matter of fact, there was no indication to the effect that the third respondent herein has furnished those statements recorded behind the back of the petitioner. It is very unfortunate to note that without giving any reasons for not furnishing such statements as stated above, the third respondent proceeded to pass a cryptic order to the effect that the inspecting officer is entitled to inspect the theatre and the explanation given by the petitioner is unacceptable and except making such statement, there is absolutely no reason given by the third respondent for arriving at the conclusion to the effect that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was proved by the authorities. Therefore, the order passed by the third respondent is nothing but a non-speaking order.
10. Now coming to the order dated 23.08.2000 passed by the appellate authority, namely, the second respondent in Cinema Appeal No.58 of 2000, the second respondent has passed a stereo-typed order like that of the third respondent herein stating that the explanation given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice is unacceptable and further stating that the statements recorded from the viewers by the inspecting officer are quite clear to establish the charge against the petitioner. It is to be reiterated, at the risk of repetition, that even the appellate authority has placed reliance on the statements recorded by the inspecting officer behind the back of the petitioner herein and further in spite of the petitioner asking for furnishing of the copies of those statements, admittedly the said statements were not served on the petitioner enabling her to defend her case effectively. Lastly, the order passed by the Government in the Revision is also nothing but a non-speaking order.
11. As already pointed out, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are nothing but the non-speaking orders as the respondents have not assigned any reasons for passing the impugned orders. It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab V. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547) following its earlier decision in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree held that, "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at."
12. This Court also cannot lost sight of the important factor to the effect that as per the impugned order passed by the third respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar inspected the theatre of the petitioner at the instructions of the R.D.O. On the other hand, the appellate authority, namely, the second respondent herein observed in his order dated 23.08.2000 that the cinema theatre of the petitioner was inspected by the R.D.O., Krishnagiri. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the theatre of the petitioner was inspected by the R.D.O., Krishnagiri, and as such there is no consistent version as to who has actually inspected the theatre of the petitioner herein. Added to such infirmity, it is pertinent to note that all the three respondents have mainly placed reliance on the inspection report of the inspecting officer and the said report and the statements said to have been recorded during the inspection were not served on the petitioner. It is also seen that the daily collection register does not contain the inspection note of the inspecting officer. The only charge levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner allowed more number of spectators/viewers than the numbers mentioned in the daily collection register, but there is no prima facie materials available on record to substantiate the above said charge.
13. To sum up, it is to be reiterated that the charge levelled against the petitioner would not attract the provisions under Rule 83(1)(a) of the Rules as the said Rules, as already pointed out, relates to the fixation of actual number of persons to be admitted to each class of accommodation in the theatre by the licensing authority and in the instant case, there is no allegation that the petitioner admitted more number of persons than the number fixed by the licensing authority. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not contravened the provision under the Act and Rules and as such the entire proceedings is vitiated. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents passed not only the non-speaking orders but also passed the orders mechanically, arbitrarily and without application of mind in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the third respondent dated 09.01.2000 in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.C1/96057/99, and the order of the second respondent in Cinema Appeal No.58 of 2000 dated 23.08.2000 and also the order of the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.553, Home (Cinema-2) Department, dated 02.07.2001 are hereby quashed. No costs.
gg To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Cinema) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Cinema), Land Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri 636 705