Order The petitioner, the lessee of a cinema, seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, in R.C. No. 10935/55 C-1, dated 11th July, 1955, suspending his licence for four days from 12th July, 1955 to 15th July, 1955 both days inclusive. It appears that the petitioner was holding at the time when his licence was suspended a licence in form C issued under Rule 14-A of the Cinematograph Rules framed under Act II of 1918. The impugned order was passed as a consequence of the petitioner selling 72 tickets of the fourth class of 0-4-6 in excess contrary to the terms of the licence and of the rules which prescribed a certain number in each class of the auditorium i.e. the number of persons to be admitted to the fourth class was 425 and it was alleged that 72 more persons were admitted by issuing excess tickets. Upon a report by the Commercial Tax Officer, the Manager of the cinema admitted having sold the excess tickets and that the persons to whom those tickets were sold were present in the auditorium. The Collector, Visakhapatnam, therefore, issued a memo. R.C. No. 10935/55 C-1, dated 8th June, 1955, clearly setting out that the excess sales were made at the first show on 3rd May, 1955, in violation of the number fixed in “A” form licence under rule 47 (2) (a) of the Cinematograph Rules; and that the Manager of the Cinema Shri K. Achari in a letter, dated 7th May, 1955, to the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, admitted that 72 tickets were sold in excess and that all the persons who bought the tickets were admitted into the auditorium. The petitioner by this notice was asked to show cause within a week from the date of the memo. why the licence should not be suspended for 15 days under clause 10 of the licence read with Rule 14-A of the Cinema Rules failing which it will be considered that he has no explanation to offer and orders will be passed accordingly. From the counter filed by the Government it appears that this memo. was served on the petitioner in person on 18th June, 1955,but no representation was made and no explanation offered. From the counter filed by the Government it appears that this memo. was served on the petitioner in person on 18th June, 1955,but no representation was made and no explanation offered. The respondent having waited till nth July, 1955, passed the impugned order in which he set out the entire facts and directed that the licence of the petitioner be suspended under clause 10 of the licence read with Rule 14-A of the Cinematograph Rules. It appears from the counter that the petitioner’s explanation was received on the same day after the passing of the order and that even though a representation was made for the cancellation of that order through the petitioner’s advocate, the respondent saw no reason to cancel the order. The petitioner in his explanation stated that he was away from the station on 3rd May, 1955 and had, therefore, made enquiries from Sri K. Achari who was in charge of the theatre on that date. He further stated that from the statement of Shri K. Achari it appeared that though 72 tickets were actually sold in excess of the seating capacity, the actual number of persons in the fourth class did not exceed 425, because 36 persons who had bought these tickets later wanted to go into the upper class, i.e., Rs. 0-9-0 class and consequently additional tickets of Rs. 0-4-6 were issued to them and that in this way 36 persons went up. He further admitted that according to the explanation of his Manager in spite of several precautionary measures taken to control the mob, the Manager was forced to sell a little more than the capacity though by such excess sale there was no contravention of any law or rule since the small number of excess persons were admitted into the next higher class where there was accommodation available He therefore prayed that the proceedings may be dropped as there was no violation of the rule and that he would take care to see that no excess tickets are sold in future. Learned advocate for the petitioner contends that under the Andhra Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1955 which repealed the Cinematograph Act of 1918, the Collector had no jurisdiction to suspend the licence, but could only take actum under sections 9 and 10 thereof. Learned advocate for the petitioner contends that under the Andhra Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1955 which repealed the Cinematograph Act of 1918, the Collector had no jurisdiction to suspend the licence, but could only take actum under sections 9 and 10 thereof. He further contends that the rules made under section 9 (3) of the Madras Cinematograph Act though saved under section 13 of the Andhra Act cannot be invoked for the purposes of suspension of the licence having regard to the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh1, and the case of Lingareddi Venkatareddi and others.2 Subject to the legal contentions, if the authority was properly vested with the power to suspend the licence, in my view there is no irregularity in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The Collector had given a notice to the petitioner, gave him time and even though he was served he did not appear within that period but let his case go by default. In the order suspending the licence for four days as well as in the notice to show cause why it should not be suspended, the Collector had stated the material upon which he proposed to take action, viz., that the Commercial Tax Officer had reported that 72 tickets were sold in excess and that the petitioner’s Manager had admitted this fact not only with respect to the 72 tickets sold in excess, but also that those persons to whom the tickets were sold had entered the auditorium No further action could have been taken by the Collector in affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner toshow cause against the proposed suspension. But in this case this is not the only question which falls for determination The jurisdiction of the Collector to pass the order is itself challenged on the ground that he had no authority to suspend the licence and that he should have taken action under sections 9 and 10 of the Andhra Act. It may be stated that the Cinematograph Act of 1918 and the Madras Cnematograph Rules of 1933 were in force in the State of Andhra till the passing of the Andhra Cinemas (Regulation) Act IV of 1955 which was brought into force by a notification of the Government G.O. No. Ms. 759 dated 27th March, 1955 as from that date. It may be stated that the Cinematograph Act of 1918 and the Madras Cnematograph Rules of 1933 were in force in the State of Andhra till the passing of the Andhra Cinemas (Regulation) Act IV of 1955 which was brought into force by a notification of the Government G.O. No. Ms. 759 dated 27th March, 1955 as from that date. The offence alleged was committed on 3rd May, 1955, that is, after the Act had come into force in the Andhra State. By virtue of section 13 of the Act, the Cinematograph Act of 1918 in so far as the latter was not repealed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act) was repealed, but the rules have been saved by the proviso to the said section which is as follows: — “Provided that any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or by-law, made or issued under the repealed Act, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions of this Act, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or by-law made or issued under this Act”. There can be no doubt that the Madras Cinematograph rules have been specifically saved and are deemed to have been made under the Act. The petitioner on the date of the offence was, admittedly having regard to the counter of the respondent, granted a licence under rule 14-A in form “C”. That rule states as follows: “14-A. (1) If, on an application for the renewal of a licence presented under rule 11, the licensing authority does not for any reason before the date of expiry of the licence, either renew and return the licence or refuse to renew the same he shall grant a temporary permit in form C annexed to these Rules, provided that Chief Electrical Inspector’s certificate continues to remain valid. (2) Such temporary permit shall be subject to the conditions of the licence sought to be renewed and shall be valid for a period of one month from the date of the grant thereof and may be renewed by the licensing authority for further periods of one month at a time: Provided that the temporary permit shall cease to be valid and shall be surrendered to the licensing authority on the applicant receiving the licence duly renewed or on his receiving an order refusing to renew the licence: Provided further that the temporary permit shall be surrendered to the licensing authority on demand made at any time in that behalf. (3) No fees shall be levied for the grant of such temporary permit. (4) The temporary permit shall, during the period of its validity, be deemed to be a licence for the purpose of these rules”. Even in the show cause notice and the order suspending the petitioner’s licence reference has been made to rule 14-A and condition 10 of the licence. The reference to condition 10 of the licence appears to be a mistake for condition 11. Condition 11 of the licence says that it is “subject to cancellation or suspension for the breach of any of these conditions or of the special conditions specified on the reverse”. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since the licence in form “C” is granted to him under rule 14-A, it is a licence which is given only for a month at a time and as the offence was committed on 3rd May, 1955, the licence in form “C” must have necessarily been granted after the enforcement of the Andhra Act and as such it was a licence granted under that Act. This contention has force because the Act having been in force on 27th March, 1955, the form “C” licence could only have been given after that date so as to be valid on the date of the offence on 3rd May, 1955. On this basis the further contention is that under section 9 the Collector could only have imposed a fine and it is only after conviction under that section, the licence could be revoked by the licensing authority. Sections 9 and 10 of the Andhra Cinemas (Regulation) Act are as follows: “9. On this basis the further contention is that under section 9 the Collector could only have imposed a fine and it is only after conviction under that section, the licence could be revoked by the licensing authority. Sections 9 and 10 of the Andhra Cinemas (Regulation) Act are as follows: “9. If the owner or person in charge of a Cinematograph 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 a continuing offence, with a further fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues. 10. Where the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence under section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act XXXVIII of 1952), or section 9 of this Act, the licence may be revoked by the licensing authority by an order in writing.” It will be seen from the above provisions that penalties can be levied for contravention of the provisions of that Act, or of the rules made thereunder or of the conditions and restrictions upon or subject to which any licence has been granted under that Act. As I have already stated on the admission of the respondent the licence has been granted under the Andhra Act and any action that the Collector could have taken would be under the Act, i.e., under section 9. Learned advocate for the Government submits that under Condition 11 itself the Collector had power to suspend or cancel the licence, but this condition being a condition of the licence issued under the Act, will be only subject to the provisions of that Act. Under the repealed Cinematograph Act, section 8 which imposed penalties, a power was vested in the licensing authority to revoke the licence for any contravention of the conditions or restrictions of the licence. It is subject to this provision that condition 11 in the licence was inserted and had that Act been in force the action of the Collector could have been valid. It is subject to this provision that condition 11 in the licence was inserted and had that Act been in force the action of the Collector could have been valid. But under the Andhra Act before the authority could revoke the licence the petitioner should be convicted of an offence under section 9 and the punishment under section 9 is only limited to fine. In other words, the petitioner could not only have been fined on conviction, but would also expose himself to action for the revocation of his licence. The further argument that was addressed before me on the assumption that the licence was granted under the old Act before the enforcement of the Andhra Act and consequently the deeming proviso of section 13 which saved the rules cannot authorise the licensing authority to impose any penalty, need not now be considered. I am of the view that for the reasons stated above the Collector acted without jurisdiction in suspending the licence, without first convicting the petitioner under section 9. In the result the order of the Collector dated 11th July, 1955 will be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The petition is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. A.S.R. ------ Petition allowed. Writ issued.