JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner calls in question legality of orders passed by authorities functioning under Orissa Cinema Regulation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Orissa Cinema Regulation Rules, 1964 (in short 'the Rules'). 2. Backdrop in which the writ application has been filed is essentially as follows : Petitioner was granted licence No. 2 of 1992 to run a video hall. By notices dated 2-8-1994 and 2-9-1994, petitioner was required to show cause as to why his licence shall not be revoked/cancelled. Petitioner submitted his replies. The District Magistrate, Khondmal (O. P. No. 2) on the basis of a report purported to have been given by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda, did not accept prayer for renewal. An appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (S. D.), Orissa, Berhampur (in short the 'R. D. C') who remanded the matter to the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned order after grant of opportunity to the petitioner. After re-hearing, District Magistrate was of the view that petitioner was not eligible to hold the licence in view of the report of S. D. M. and Sub-Collector and reiterated order of his predecessor. An appeal before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner did not yield any result. 3. Two points are urged in support of the writ application Firstly, it is submitted that the power to revoke licence can be exercised under certain circumstances as enumerated in Section 8 of the Act. Secondly, licence issued has to contain certain conditions which are to be indicated as required under Rule, 95 of the Rules. Copy of the licence issued to the petitioner does not show insertions of conditions as required under Rule 95. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the authorities were satisfied that obnoxious films were being exhibited by the petitioner and keeping in view moral requirements of the society, action taken is proper and a technical view should not be taken in the matter. 4. Power of revocation is given u/s 8 of the Act, Revocation can be done by licensing authority under two circumstances, namely, (a) whether the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence u/s 7 of Cinematograph Act, 1952 (in short the 'Cinematograph Act') or u/s 7 of the Act, Section 7 of the Act, deals with penalties for contravention of the Act, Sections 7 and 8 read as follows : "Section 7. Penalties for contravention of this Act--If the owner or person in charge of a cinema uses the same or allows it to be used or if the owner or occupier of any place permits that place to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder or of the conditions and restrictions upon or subject to which any licence has been granted under this Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and in the case of continuing offence, with a further line which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues. "Section 8, Power to revoke licence : Where the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence u/s 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 XXXVI of 1952) or u/s 7 of this Act, the licence may be revoked by the licensing authority." It is, therefore, clear that in cider to revoke a licence, conviction u/s 7 of either the Act or the Cinematograph Act is a precondition. If there is no such conviction, revocation cannot be done. Records produced before us do not reveal that there was any conviction u/s 7 of either of the Acts, referred to above. Therefore, the licence could not have been revoked. On that score, the petitioner is bound to succeed. 5. The alternative plea is about non-insertion of conditions in the licence as required under Rule 95. Prima facie it does not appear that such conditions were inserted in the licence. The licence has to be in the specific form (Form ' 'A') which is a part of the Appendix to the Rules. The conditions as appearing in the schedules of conditions in Form-'A' have to be in addition to the conditions as indicated in Rule 95. It would be appropriate if the licence issuing authority keeps the mandate of Rule 95 in view while granting licence. It is not shown to us as to how petitioner is prejudiced by the non-insertion. In any event, there is no specific plea in that regard in the writ application. It is open to the petitioner to highlight this aspect before the licensing authority. 6. It is not shown to us as to how petitioner is prejudiced by the non-insertion. In any event, there is no specific plea in that regard in the writ application. It is open to the petitioner to highlight this aspect before the licensing authority. 6. The licensing authority shall reconsider the matter within three months from the date of receipt of our order in accordance with law after granting due opportunity to the petitioner to place his case. Our order be communicated to opp. party No. 2 immediately. Requisites shall be filed by Monday (11-3-1996). The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. D. Misra, J. I agree.