( 1 ) IN this petition under Art 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order No. RBR/ent/76-77 dated 17-6-1976 of the District Magistrate raichur (hereinafter referred to as the d. M.) (Annexure-C ). ( 2 ) AMONG others, the petitioner is the owner of a touring cinema situated in gangavati town, Raichur Dist. licensed under the provisions of the Karnataka cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1964) and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules ). Some time prior to 14-5-1976, the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, koppal, inspected the said touring talkies and reported to the D. M. certain omissions and commissions in the running of the same. On receipt of the said report, the D. M. in notice No. RBR/ent/30/ 76-77 dated 21-5-1916 (Annexure-A) called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence issued to him under the Act, should not be cancelled on the grounds set therein, to which the petitioner filed his reply admitting certain facts but denying certain other facts, requesting him to drop the proceedings. On a consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, the D. M. , apparently holding that every one of the grounds stated in the show cause notice as proved, has made the following order: "no RBR/ent/76-77 dated 17-6-76. The Cinema licence of Amar Talkies, gangavati is hereby suspended for the reasons shown in the preamble as required under S. 17 (1) of the Karnataka cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971. The proprietor is required to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 as required under S. 16 of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) act 1964 for the contravention of the provision of S. 11 of the said Act. Besides, he is also required to pay the r. 50 amount of Rs. 3,09,550-50 collection made by him in respect of the un-permitted seats from 31-5-1975 to 31-5-76. This amount has been worked out presuming that he exhibited every day three houseful shows. Sd/ Dist. Magistrate and deputy Commr. , Raichur " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has asserted before the D. M. made his order, that he was not prosecuted before a criminal Court for violations of the provisions referred to in s. 17 of the Act, much less there has been any conviction against him thereto. Sd/ Dist. Magistrate and deputy Commr. , Raichur " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has asserted before the D. M. made his order, that he was not prosecuted before a criminal Court for violations of the provisions referred to in s. 17 of the Act, much less there has been any conviction against him thereto. Apart from this, the petitioner has also urged various other grounds against the impugned order. In the statement of objections the respondent does not dispute the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner. But, still the respondent has sought to sustain his action under clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the license granted to the petitioner. ( 4 ) SRI H. R. Venkataramaniah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in the absence of a conviction by a criminal Court for violations of the provisions referred to in S. 17 of the Act, the D. M, cannot suspend or revoke the license granted under the Act. ( 5 ) SRI R. G. Devadar, learned High court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent sought to sustain the order on condition No. 15 found in the license issued to the petitioner. ( 6 ) S. 17 of the Act empowers a District magistrate to suspend or revoke a license issued to a licensee under the Act. But, that power can be exercised by the d. M. only if there is conviction for one or the other offences referred to therein and not otherwise. The D. M. is empowered to suspend or revoke a license only on the basis of a conviction by a criminal Court and not otherwise. S. 17 of the Act does not confer power on the d. M. to independently examine the violations, decide the truth or otherwise of them and then suspend or revoke a license. Why the legislature has so restricted the power of the D. M. is not for the Courts to examine. But, so long as the legislature has restricted the power and requires the authority to exercise that power only on the basis of a conviction by a criminal Court for offences under the Act, S. 7 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 or S. 12 of the Karnataka Entertainments Act of 1958, the D. M. cannot ignore the same and revoke or suspend a license granted to a licensee under the act. ( 7 ) CONDITION No. 15 of the licence granted to a licensee in the form prescribed by Government under the Act, cannot enlarge the power conferred by S. 17 of the Act and has to be read as only effectuating the object of the Act. A clause in the form prescribed by Government cannot enlarge the power conferred by the act. In this view, the reliance placed on clause 15 to sustain the action has no merit. ( 8 ) THE Act does not empower the D. M. to impose fines on a licensee and therefore, the fine imposed against the petitioner is wholly unauthorised. ( 9 ) THE determination of liability and recoveries thereto for the increase in seating capacity has to be made by the authority empowered under the Karnataka entertainments Tax of 1958 and not by the D. M. functioning under the Act. In this view the demand of tax by the D. M. cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) ON the above conclusion the order made by the D. M. is liable to be quashed and therefore, it is unnecessary to examine the other contentions urged for the petitioner or the respondent. I, therefore, quash the impugned order made by the d. M. But, this does not prevent the authorities from prosecuting the petitioner for any of the offences alleged to have been committed by him, determining the amounts due towards the increase in seating capacity and recovering them in accordance with law. ( 11 ) RULE issued is made absolute. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .