Judgment :- 1. This is a petition praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash an order of the District Magistrate of Trivandrum, No. L. Dis. 415/53/DMT dated 19-3-53. Exhibit A, the proceedings of the said District Magistrate which embodies the order, is reproduced below: "Read: 1. This office order dated 3-1-1953 granting general permission to stage the Malayalam drama "JM°RtRD WO I PeMyVaL"M" in the Trivandrum District. 2. Mass petition dated 9-3-1953 from the people of Balaramapuram objecting to the staging of the drama sanctioned to be performed at the Murukan Talkies, Balaramapuram on 20-3-1953 and the report of the D. S. P.Trivandrum thereon. 3. This office order dated 15-3-1953 revoking the order permitting the staging of the above drama at Balaramapuram on 20-3-1953. 4. Report of the D. S. P., Trivandrum dated 18-3-1953 on the application of Sri T. K. Sivathanu, Thiruvallam to grant permission to stage the Drama at Kovalam on 19-3-1953. 5. Report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Nemom dated 17-3-1953 on the application of Sri T.K. Sivathanu of Thiruvallam to grant permission to stage the above drama at Thiruvallam on 19-3-1953. 6. Report of the D. S. P. Trivandrum T. ROC No. 25 / 3 / I D / 1953 dated 18-3-1953 to cancel the general permission granted to stage the drama in the Trivandrum District. From the reports cited above it is seen that several additions are made to the approved text in the actual enactment bath in songs and speeches, that portions which are specifically directed to be omitted in the approved text are not actually omitted while staging the drama, that the drama as staged tends to create strong disaffection hatred and contempt towards the existing Government as also feelings of class hatred among the public, that as a direct result of the class hatred created by the performances so far conducted in several places, strong oppositions from large section of the public have already come to notice and is tending to increase in intensity so that breaches of the public peace are seriously apprehended. Order L. Dis. 415/53/DMT dated 19-3-1953. I therefore revoke the general permission granted to stage the drama ""jM°RtRD WO I PeMyVaL"M" in the Trivandrum District." 2. It is clear from the order that it is a revocation of a permission already granted. Order L. Dis. 415/53/DMT dated 19-3-1953. I therefore revoke the general permission granted to stage the drama ""jM°RtRD WO I PeMyVaL"M" in the Trivandrum District." 2. It is clear from the order that it is a revocation of a permission already granted. The only Section of the Travancore Dramatic Performances Act, 1115 (Act II of 1115) which makes a permission or license necessary is . Section 9: - "[1] Our Government may by notification published in Our Government Gazette order that no dramatic performance shall take place in any place of public entertainment, except under a license to be granted by Our Government, or such officer as it may empower in this behalf. [2] Our Government may also order that no dramatic performance shall take place in any place of public entertainment unless a copy of the piece, if and so far as it is written, or some sufficient account of its purport, if and so far as it is in pantomime, has been furnished not less than three days before the performance, to Our Government, or to such officer as it may appoint in this behalf. [3] A copy of any order under this Section may be served on any keeper of a place of public entertainment, and if thereafter he does or willingly permits, any act in disobedience to such order, he shall be punishable, on conviction before a Magistrate, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." 3. I am assured by the learned Advocate General that no notification as contemplated in sub-section (1) has been issued by the Government. No license under section 9 is hence required and what has really happened is the unnecessary cancellation on 19-3-1253 by the District Magistrate of Trivandrum of a non-necessary permission already issued by him. 4. I am assured by the learned Advocate General that no notification as contemplated in sub-section (1) has been issued by the Government. No license under section 9 is hence required and what has really happened is the unnecessary cancellation on 19-3-1253 by the District Magistrate of Trivandrum of a non-necessary permission already issued by him. 4. The learned Advocate General sought to support the order of 19-3-1953 on the ground that it is in effect not the cancellation of a permission already granted but a substantive order of prohibition under section 2 of Act II of 1115: "[1] Whenever Our Government is of opinion that any play, pantomime or other drama performed or about to be performed in a public place is- [a] of a scandalous or defamatory nature, or [b] likely to excite disaffection against or bring into hatred or contempt Us or Our Government or His Majesty the King Emperor of India or the Government established by law in British India, or the Ruler of an Indian State, or [c] likely to bring into hatred or contempt any member of the Ruling Family of Travancore, or [d] likely to deprave and *correct persons present at the performance, Our Government may by order prohibit the performance, [2] A District Magistrate, when specially empowed in this behalf by Our Government, may exercise within his District the powers conferred under Sub-section [1]: Provided that Our Government may at any time modify, suspend or cancel any such order. Explanation:- Any building or enclosure to which the public are admitted to witness a performance on payment of money shall be deemed a public place within the meaning of this Section." 5. From sub-section (2) it is clear that the District Magistrate of Trivandrum can exercise powers of prohibition only when specially empowered in that behalf by the Government and it is admitted by the learned Advocate General that no such special empowering has ever been made. 6. Confronted with the absence of the necessary governmental action, the foundation and pre-requisite of a District Magistrate's power under the section, the learned Advocate General argued, with considerable ingenuity, that there has been a notification under section 6 which can be construed as empowering the District Magistrate to act under section 2 though not by apt words at least by necessary implication. 7. 7. Section 6 reads: "For the purpose of ascertaining the character of any intended public dramatic performance. Our Government or such officer as it may specially empower in this behalf, may apply to the author, proprietor, or printer of the drama about to be performed, or to the owner or occupier of the place in which it is intended to be performed for such information as Our Government or such officer, thinks necessary. Every person so applied shall be bound to furnish the same to the best of his ability, and whoever contravenes this section shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 169 of the Travancore Penal Code." and the notification concerned (Exhibit I) is in the following terms: "In pursuance of Section 6 of the Travancore Dramatic Performances Act, 1115 [II of 1115], the Government of His Highness the Maharaja are pleased to specially empower the District Magistrates of Trivandrum, Quilon and Kottayam for the purposes of the said section of the said Act." 8. It is clear from the notification that the empowering was only for the purposes of section 6, and no other, and that it is not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the State. 9. It follows that the order of the learned District Magistrate of Trivandrum has no legal backing whatsoever and that it cannot be sustained. 10. Very interesting arguments were advanced before me regarding the validity of Act II of 1115 in the light of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. There is every temptation to embark on a discussion of those arguments as the whole field has been so ably covered by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. K.G. Kunjukrishna Pillai, and the learned Advocate General. In the light of what is stated above, however, I have no option but to content myself by saying that the order of the learned District Magistrate of Trivandrum granting the license and his order of 19-3-1953 revoking the same are both unsupported by any of the provisions of Act II of 1115. No formal order is apparently required in this matter except a direction that the petitioner shall not in any way be prejudiced by the cancellation of the license by the order of 19-3-1953. 11. No formal order is apparently required in this matter except a direction that the petitioner shall not in any way be prejudiced by the cancellation of the license by the order of 19-3-1953. 11. I have disposed of this petition solely on the narrow question dealt with above and the other points raised by the petitioner are left completely open for agitation, if and when necessary, as a result of subsequent governmental action under the provisions of Act II of 1115. 12. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. Allowed.