Judgment : The petitioner has filed the writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari by calling for the records of the respondent herein in his proceedings Pa.Mu.93198/91, dated 25.8.1992 and quash the same as illegal or to issue any further direction order or any other appropriate writ as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would reveal his case stating that the petitioners are the owners of the petition mentioned theatre; that they are ‘C’ Form licence holders; that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore conducted an inspection on the petitioners theatre on 16.11.1991 at 12.30 p.m. and the following irregularities were detected: • 1. Admittedthe viewers only with tokens and without tickets; • 2. Only 90 persons have been shown in the D.C.R. but admitted 241 persons in the theatre; that on finding out the defects the respondent issued a notice in his Na.Ka.C-1/93198/91, dated 5.12.1991, stating that the said defects are in violation of Rule 83(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 and called for the explanation from the petitioners as to why the ‘C’ Form licence should not be suspended permanently under Sec.9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. 3. Further, the case of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudiyatham (East) has issued a notice dated 31.3.1992 and compounded the offence departmentally with the compounding fee of Rs.1,000 and that the respondents have issued another notice under Sec.15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, suspending the licence under Sec.9 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28.6.1992. But in spite of such reasonable explanation offered, the respondent ordered suspension of the ‘C’ Form licence for thirty days as per Sec.9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act and as per his proceedings dated 25.8.1992 made in Pa.Mu.93198/91. The petition further reveals that since already the offence had been compounded with the payment of the compounding fee of Rs.1,000 as per the orders passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, it is not open to the licencing authority either to suspend or not to suspend and in consideration of the legal position of the Section, the authority should have restrained from suspending the ‘C’ Form licence for thirty days. 4. 4. The only valid ground under which the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition is that the powers conferred upon the authority, the respondent herein, under Sec.9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act is discretionary and that the respondent under the impression that it is mandatory has imposed the penalty and if properly considered, he would not have imposed the penalty at all. Further more, just for the simple reason that there is no appeal provision under it does not mean that the authority concerned should not make use of the existing provisions of law whenever it is required and wherever it is necessary. The irregularities and the violation of the rules committed on behalf of the petitioner in running the cinema theatre for the public purpose is a serious offence and the punishment in cancelling the ‘C’ Form licence for thirty days as ordered by the respondent is quite fitting and proper and it cannot also be said on the higher side nor fixed in an arbitrary manner. Hence, there is absolutely no room for this Court to interfere with such a well considered and well merited order passed by the respondents in exercise of his powers granted under law. Hence, the interference of this Court as sought for by the petitioner in the prayer of the writ petitioner is uncalled for. 5. In the above circumstances, it is decided that there is no pith or substance in the above writ petition. The irregularity detected by the Revenue Divisional Officer is serious in nature and the punishment imposed by the respondent in cancelling the ‘C’ Form licence of the petitioner theatre for a term of thirty days is quite appropriate in the circumstances of the case and the same is confirmed herewith. The petitioner is required to carry out the suspension order within 30th March, 2000. 6. In the result, the above writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs, Consequently, W.M.P.No.26072 of 1992 is closed.