Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the licencee of Mary Matha theatre at Kanimangalam. He has been licenced to conduct cinema shows in the theatre. By Ext.P1 the second respondent has threatened, to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for the violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961, for short, The Entertainments Tax Act, to restrain him from exhibiting the cinematographic films and also to cancel the licence issued to him under The Cinematographic Regulations Act etc. For easy reference relevant part of Ext.P1 notice is extracted hereunder: 2. The petitioner gave Ext.P2 reply to Ext. P1, from where it can be seen that he has denied all the allegations levelled against him. Ext.P2 is dated 10-12-1987. On 11-12-1987 the impugned order, Ext.P3 was passed. 3. It is the common case of the parties that the second respondent had not given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before Ext.P3 order was passed. 4. The petitioner has urged three points: (1) Failure to comply with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of S.10 makes the notice Ext.P1, one issued without jurisdiction. (2) There is nothing stated in Ext.P1 notice that the petitioner has violated S.5 by admitting persons to the entertainment without payment. (3) The order Ext.P3 is passed without giving the petitioner adequate opportunity to present his case. 5. Regarding Point No. I it is necessary to understand the content of subsection (2) of S.10. This sub-section provides that any officer authorised by the local authority in this behalf may enter any place of entertainment while the entertainment is proceeding, and any place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment at any reasonable time, and if satisfied that the provisions of S.5 are not complied with, by order in writing prevent the further use of such place for the purpose of any entertainment. It is clear from the plain language employed in this sub-section that the officer who can enter any place of entertainment while the entertainment is proceeding or any place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment, must be one who has been authorised by the Local Authority. That without such authorisation the officer cannot enter any place of entertainment is clear from the definition of local authority under S.2 sub-section (6). That without such authorisation the officer cannot enter any place of entertainment is clear from the definition of local authority under S.2 sub-section (6). The power the Local Authority can exercise under this sub-section could be exercised by an officer as well, provided he has been authorised by the Local Authority in that behalf. This is a condition precedent. The question that requires to be considered in this context is, Has the second respondent been authorised by the Local Authority to enter the place where the entertainment is proceeding or to inspect the place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment and conduct the investigation contemplated under the sub-section. A reference in this connection to the pleadings of the parties is relevant Though the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, he has not stated there that he has the specific authorisation within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S.10 enabling him to enter the premises and conduct the enquiry and take action against the licence. No doubt, he has in Para.6 stated that "the allegation in Ground No.A that the second respondent is not an authorised officer is incorrect". Except to make such a statement, he has not even asserted that he has been authorised by the Local Authority, the counsel for the petitioner submits. May be, the second respondent has not pleaded his case properly. But that will not take away the effect of Clause.21 of The Bye-Laws approved by the authority mentioned in sub-section (3) of S.12 of The Entertainments Act. It reads: as per the definition is, the executive officer. The second respondent being an officer authorised by the Panchayat is competent to enter the premises for the purposes contemplated under subsection (2) of S.10. The proceedings proposed by Ext.P1 notice therefore is sustainable in law. 6. Coming to points Nos.2 and 3: A reference in this connection to Ext.P1 notice is relevant. The facts stated in Ext.P1, at best, would show that the petitioner has created certain documents with a view to evade tax. To constitute violation of the provisions of S.5 it should be established that the licencee has admitted any person without a ticket, the tax for which has not been prepaid. The facts stated in Ext.P1, at best, would show that the petitioner has created certain documents with a view to evade tax. To constitute violation of the provisions of S.5 it should be established that the licencee has admitted any person without a ticket, the tax for which has not been prepaid. Such tickets however, are not necessary, where the proprietor of the entertainment has made arrangements, approved by the Local Authority, for furnishing returns of the payments for admission to the entertainment and has given security approved by the local authority for the payment of the entertainment tax. There are certain allegations in the notice that the petitioner has manipulated certain records in order to avoid payment of tax. Such allegations until established, cannot be said to provide the ground to cancel the licence. Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the objections, he has raised against the proposed actions, discernible from Ext.P1 and Ext.Rl notices, the petitioner cannot be penalised. That such an enquiry is mandatory can be seen from the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.10. This proviso provides that before prohibiting the further use of the place for the purpose of the entertainment, the proprietor of the entertainment shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. What then is meant by 'reasonable opportunity'? This requirement has two elements; One an opportunity to show cause must be given (2) the opportunity must be reasonable. To say that the first element is satisfied it is not enough if the party is given an opportunity to file his objections resisting the proposed action. He must also be given an opportunity to substantiate the objections by producing evidence both documentary and oral. For this purpose it is necessary to give a personal hearing. Only if the above procedure is followed, it can be said that the second element also is satisfied. It should in this connection be remembered that the proposed action, on the same being materialised, would prevent the proprietor from carrying on his business which is a right protected by Art.19(1)(g) of The Constitution of India. It should also be kept in view the observations made by the Supreme Court, extracted hereunder, while disposing of an argument based on a similar provision contained in the Imports (Control) Order. It should also be kept in view the observations made by the Supreme Court, extracted hereunder, while disposing of an argument based on a similar provision contained in the Imports (Control) Order. It reads: "There can be no invariable standard for "reasonableness" in such matters except that the Court's conscience must be satisfied, that the person against whom an action is proposed has had a fair chance of convincing the authority who proposes to take action against him that the grounds on which the action is proposed are either non-existent or even if they exist they do not justify the proposed action....". (See Fedco (P) Ltd. v. S.N. Bilgrami, A.I.R. 1960 S.C 415). 7. The petitioner therefore shall be given adequate opportunity to produce his evidence both documentary and oral, oral by examining wit nesses, in proof of the case set up by him. A reference in this connection to the specific contention raised by the petitioner namely that during the shows an officer of the Panchayat and also a film representative used to be present in the theatre is relevant Not only that, copies of the D.C.R. require to be given to both the officer of the Local Authority as also to the film representative. The copies of the D.C.R. available with the officer and the film representative, the learned counsel argues, would establish that the petitioner has not manipulated the records. To establish these aspects it is necessary to examine the officer of the Local Authority as also the film representative. It may also be necessary to summon the copies of the D.C.R. given to them, the learned counsel submits. These submissions, in my view, have considerable force. 8. It is clear from the counter affidavit that the second respondent has not given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.10 and that it is so can be seen from the averments in Para.8 of the counter affidavit. It reads: "The allegation in Ground No.D that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for hearing is also baseless. On both these occasions he had never sought for such an opportunity. I would have definitely extended an opportunity for hearing if he had desired so". It reads: "The allegation in Ground No.D that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for hearing is also baseless. On both these occasions he had never sought for such an opportunity. I would have definitely extended an opportunity for hearing if he had desired so". Whether the petitioner requested for an opportunity or not is irrelevant to be considered, because the second respondent, going by my interpretation of the provisions contained in the proviso aforesaid, is bound to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before the final order is passed. That such an opportunity had not been given to the petitioner is also clear from the haste with which the order was passed. The explanation Ext.P2 was filed on 10-12-1987 and the order was passed on 11-12-1987. That means the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his objections contained in Ext.P2. 9. Ext.P3 for the reasons stated above is quashed. However it is made clear that the second respondent if so advised, can pursue the proceedings initiated under Ext.P1 keeping in view the observations contained in this judgment and in accordance with law. The O.P. is allowed in the manner indicated above. No costs.