ORDER: Invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner theatre herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the second respondent made in RC.No.66465/91 (Cl), dated 22.10.1992 and to quash the said proceedings of the second respondent dated 22.10.1992. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows: The petitioner herein is the licensee of a permanent cinema theatre situate in Nangavalli Village, Salem District which has been licensed under the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner has been running the cinema in accordance with the rules. That being so, there had been an anonymous complaint against the petitioner to the commercial tax authorities that the petitioner is collecting amounts in excess of the amounts specified in the ticket. In order to check the truth of the said allegation, the commercial tax authorities inspected the petitioner’s theatre on 27.7.1991 at about 3.30 p.m. when the matinee show was in progress. It was found by the inspecting authorities that the allegations levelled against the petitioner was incorrect and baseless. In order to check the truth of the said allegation, the commercial tax authorities inspected the petitioner’s theatre on 27.7.1991 at about 3.30 p.m. when the matinee show was in progress. It was found by the inspecting authorities that the allegations levelled against the petitioner was incorrect and baseless. However, the commercial tax authorities contended that 9 persons in the male bench class were found not to possess any ticket. There were only 29 persons in the male bench class witnessing the show and 83 ladies in the ladies wing of the bench class, while the permitted accommodation in the bench class was 252. The manager of the theatre therefore protested against the allegation. However, since the commercial tax authorities insisted that the petitioner’s theatre should compound the alleged offence, a sum of Rs.500 was paid in obedience to the directions of the tax authorities as a compounding fine. According to the petitioner, they had not committed any offence and consequently there was no need to compound any offence. The payment of compounding fine was made to the dictates of the commercial tax authorities who inspected the theatre. Subsequently they received a show cause notice from the 2nd respondent dated 25.8.1992 calling upon them to show cause as to why the ‘C’ Form licence of the theatre should not be suspended on account of the payment of compounding fine referred to above. The petitioner submitted an explanation contending that they had not committed any offence. The petitioner reiterated the fact that there were only 29 persons in the male bench class witnessing the show as against the permitted accommodation of 252 in the said class. It is also their contention that having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s theatre was paying entertainment tax on a compounding basis under Sec.5B of the Act, there was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to permit any person into the theatre without issuing tickets. Therefore according to them no offence had been committed under the Entertainment Tax Act and therefore the action proposed may be dropped. It was also pointed out in the said explanation the circumstances under which the compounding fine had come to be paid. Inspite of the said explanation, the 2nd respondent has passed an order dated 22.10.1992 suspending the ‘C’ Form licence of the theatre for a period of 5 days. It was also pointed out in the said explanation the circumstances under which the compounding fine had come to be paid. Inspite of the said explanation, the 2nd respondent has passed an order dated 22.10.1992 suspending the ‘C’ Form licence of the theatre for a period of 5 days. The original order directed the suspension to take effect from 10.11.1992 which has been subsequently modified to take effect from 1.12.1992 to 5.12.1992. The aforesaid order has been passed under Sec.9(1) of the Cinema Regulation Act. The said order is not appealble under Sec.9-A of the Cinema Regulation Act and consequently the petitioner has no other effective alternate remedy except approaching this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner of the grounds that on the relevant date, there were only 29 persons in the male bench class and 83 persons in the female bench class as against the permitted accommodation of 252, that the mere fact that a few persons had not produced the ticket at the time of inspection cannot be said to be against the petitioner to the effect that they had permitted the said persons without the issue of tickets which constituted an offence under the Entertainment Tax Act, and that therefore the facts alleged against the petitioner as borne out by the records would not constitute any offence and consequently the payment of a sum of Rs.500 as compounding fine cannot be the basis for passing any order under Sec.9(1) of the Act and that therefore the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is also their case that the mere payment of a compounding fine would not attracts Sec.9(1) of the Act since in the present case the theatre was not full and the bench class was also empty to the extent of more than 60% and the further fact that the petitioner is paying Entertainment Tax on a compounding basis in respect of the seats, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed an offence under the Entertainment Tax Act. Further according to them the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, that the petitioner has not been made know about the persons in respect of whom tickets had not been issued and that the action of the authorities in having come to the conclusion without proper opportunity to the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended by the petitioner that the composition of an offence does not amount to conviction of the person who is incharge of the offence, nor does it amount to establishing the offence, and that Sec.9(1) of the Act cannot be resorted to indiscriminately without taking note of the background of facts leading to the composition of an alleged offence. It is their categorical case that there may be several cases like the present one where licensees are compelled by the commercial tax authorities to pay the composition fine for various statistical purposes and that the licensees succumb to the pressure and pay the composition fine for various purposes with a view to purchase peace and that therefore the said payment does not amount to the admission of an offence. Thus it is their case that even though the petitioner has set out the above facts in the explanation given before the licencing authorities, the failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to consider the same and the action of the 2nd respondent in mechanically suspending the ‘C’ form licence without considering the explanation of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore liable to be set aside. They also contend that there are several cases where persons commit offences and compound the same, while in other cases the theatres compound alleged offences in order to purchase peace and also that Sec.9(1) of the Act does not enable the licencing authorities to suspend or revoke the licence merely on account of the payment of the compounding fines. Therefore, it is their case that the action of the 2nd respondent which appears to be mechanical in nature is therefore opposed to the provisions of Sec.9(1) of the Act and therefore liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is their case that the action of the 2nd respondent which appears to be mechanical in nature is therefore opposed to the provisions of Sec.9(1) of the Act and therefore liable to be set aside. 7.Per contra, it is contended by the respondents in their counter that petition from one N.T.S.Annamalai of Nangavalli was received by Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption in their letter dated 16.5.1991 wherein it has been stated that this theatre authorities are collecting rates of admission in excess, than the prescribed rates of admissions from the public and hence the commercial tax authorities were requested in office Roc.66465/91(C2), dated 16.7.1991 to inspect the theatre in connection with the above complaints and to give a report. Thereafter the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Omalur inspected the theatre on 27.7.1991 at 3.30 p.m., and found that nine persons were admitted in the auditorium for the matinee show without any valid ticket or pass and so that offence was compounded and a fine of Rs.500 has been collected from the licensee by the commercial tax authorities, and since the charges are proved as the licensee has been compounded for the offence under the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, after due notice the C Form licence was suspended from 10.11.1992 to 14.11.1992 and it was subsequently modified to 1.12.1992 to 5.12.1992 on the request of the licensee as there was a festival during November, 1992 at the above village. Thus it is the case of the respondents that as the licensee accepted the offence, it is proved that he has violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act and to this offence the licensing authority has got power to suspend the theatre under Sec.9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. It is contended by the respondents that actually if there were no ticketles audience he could have produced the tickets issued to the nine persons to substantiate his case before the commercial tax officials. But the licensee without establishing his correctness to the commercial tax authorities, now pleading as if he is not at fault and that therefore according to the respondents, this sort of attitude cannot be accepted though he is a tax payer under Sec.5-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. But the licensee without establishing his correctness to the commercial tax authorities, now pleading as if he is not at fault and that therefore according to the respondents, this sort of attitude cannot be accepted though he is a tax payer under Sec.5-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. It is also their contention that the petitioner may be a tax payer under Sec.5-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act i.e., under compounding system but it does not means that the licensee can accommodate any number of persons without any ticket or pass. It is their strong case that if he was really not at fault he ought to have proved to the commercial tax officials that the persons were not allowed without any tickets or passes and he ought to have refused to pay the compounding amount of Rs.500 and that therefore as he has remitted the amount of Rs.500 to the commercial tax authorities it is proved that he has committed the offence. Further according to the respondents that licensing authority can revoke or suspend the licence against a licensee when he has been convicted of an offence under Clause 1(a) or Clause (c) of Sec.14 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 or has been permitted to compound such offence under Sec.15 of the said Act. Apart from that it is also contended by the respondents that before taking a decision, the previous history of the licensee was also looked into. The licensee has previously admitted 109 persons, collected excess amount of rate of admission indulged in incorrect preparation of daily collection register and he has issued tokens also and for the above offence the C Form licence was suspended from 12.12.1986 to 31.12.1986 i.e., for 20 days in office Ref.No.155840/86/05 and that therefore according to the respondents it is proved that the petitioner herein is in the habit of violating the provisions of Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 and Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955 and Rules, 1957. Thus, it is their case that the suspension order impugned in this writ petition dated 22.10.1992 is in accordance with law and on facts and that therefore the present writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. Thus, it is their case that the suspension order impugned in this writ petition dated 22.10.1992 is in accordance with law and on facts and that therefore the present writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the claims made by the petitioners and also the counter claim made by the respondents in their counter, the following are admitted facts in this case. On a complaint that the petitioner theatre authorities are collecting excess admission rates, the commercial tax authorities inspected the petitioner’s theatre on 27.7.1991 at about 3.30 p.m. and found that 9 persons in the male bench class did not possess any ticket or pass. Such an offence was compounded by the theatre by paying a sum of Rs.500 as compounding fine. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 25.8.1992 calling upon them to show cause as to why the ‘C’ Form licence of the theatre should not be suspended on account of the payment of compounding fine referred to above. They filed their explanation. But not accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner theatre the 2nd respondent herein passed the order impugned in this writ petition suspending the ‘C’ Form Licence of the theatre for a period of 5 days. It is significant in this case that when the said compounding of offence by paying a compounding fine amount of Rs.500 is admitted, it is contended by them that they did so only in order to purchase peace with the tax officials and they are not guilty. Further it is contended by them that there were only 29 persons in the male bench class as against the permitted accommodation of 252 in the said class and also that having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s theatre was paying entertainment tax on a compounding basis under Sec.5-B of the Act, there was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to permit any person into the theatre without issuing tickets. That being so it is significant to note that if actually there were no ticketless audience he could have produced the tickets issued to the nine persons to establish his case before the commercial tax officials, but this has not been done by the petitioner theatre and now only he is pleading that he is not at fault. That being so it is significant to note that if actually there were no ticketless audience he could have produced the tickets issued to the nine persons to establish his case before the commercial tax officials, but this has not been done by the petitioner theatre and now only he is pleading that he is not at fault. Further, he may be a tax payer under Sec.5-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, i.e., under compounding system but it does not mean that the licensee can accommodate any number of persons without any ticket or pass. Thus as he had allowed 9 persons in the 3rd class on 27.7.1991 without any valid tickets, the concerned authority under the provision of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 proceeded and compounded the offence to a sum of Rs.500. That apart as rightly contended by the respondents if he was really not at fault he ought to have proved to the commercial tax officials that the persons were not allowed without any tickets or passes and he ought to have refused to pay the compounding amount of Rs.500. But that is not the case herein. The petitioner herein has admittedly paid the fine and compounded the offence. Further, it is also clear that the licensing authority can revoke or suspend the licence against a licensee when he has been convicted of an offence under Clause 1(a) or Clause (c) of Sec.14 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, or has been permitted to compound such offence under Sec.15 of the said Act. That being so, in this case admittedly as the licensee has been permitted to compound the offence to a sum of Rs.500 by the commercial tax authorities, the suspension order impugned in this writ petition and passed in office Roc.66465/91(C1), dated 22.10.1992 is an accordance with law and on facts. That apart it is also significant to note that in this matter before taking a decision, the previous history of the licensee was also looked into wherein he has collected excess amount of rate of admissions and also indulged in incorret preparation of daily collection register and for the said offence the ‘C’ form licence was suspended for 20 days. Thus, the respondents have also proved that the petitioner theatre is in the habit of violating the provisions of the concerned Act and Rules. Thus, the respondents have also proved that the petitioner theatre is in the habit of violating the provisions of the concerned Act and Rules. Therefore in this case it is their specific case that the licensee has remitted the compounding amount of Rs.500 to the tax authorities and thereby the writ petition is devoid of merits. In the above facts and circumstances of the case I see every force in the above contentions of the respondents. 9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out any case in their favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently W.M.P.No.26777 of 1992 also is dismissed.