Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his proceedings D.Dis.22215/92 dated 27-7-92 and to quash the same. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the same as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed 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 respective parties. 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 respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, 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 running a theatre in the name and style of Saravana Talkies at Pernambut, N.A.Dt. He has been running the threatre for over 2 years and so far he has not violated the terms and conditions of issue of 'C' Form licence. He claims that the DCR will clearly show that the management of the theatre has been run scrupulously and also respecting the rule of law. On 6-1-92 at about 7.00 p.m. there was a heavy rush when tickets were being issued. At that time, there was a power cut and in the darkness, many in the crowd jumped the fence and illegally entered the theatre as the generator was not in working condition. With the limited number of hands in the petitioner's theatre they were unable to resist mass intrusion of the public within the hall. At that time, there was a power cut and in the darkness, many in the crowd jumped the fence and illegally entered the theatre as the generator was not in working condition. With the limited number of hands in the petitioner's theatre they were unable to resist mass intrusion of the public within the hall. At that point of time, the inspection was made by the Sales Tax Authorities and they have found that the excess number of persons more than what is permissible under the 'C' Form licence had been found in categories. Action was taken under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Act, 1939 and he has also paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compounding fine. That does not mean that there is any motive to cheat the revenue or deprive the Government of its funds. The respondent herein had issued a notice on 14-3-92 in Poc. No.C1/22215/92 to show cause why action should not be initiated for suspending the 'C' Form licence for a period of 60 days. He immediately gave a detailed reply stating what transpired and also pleaded for leniency. On receipt of the reply even without conducting an enquiry an order has been passed on 27-7-92 suspending the licence for a period of 20 days. He received the said order sometime in August 1992. The order further states that the actual period of suspension will be intimated at a later date. On 15-3-93 he has received a communication Pa.Mu.67209 dated 26-2-93 intimating that the suspension of licence will take effect from 1-4-93 to 20-4-93. 6. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the authority had failed to give due opportunity to the petitioner-theatre and did not afford a personal hearing before it passed the impugned order, that the authority had not even considered the objection set out in explanation to the show cause notice and the non-consideration of it has exhibited that it has not subjectively satisfied as to the alleged violation and it exposes that the authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case, and also that the respondent should have given a valid reason for suspending the licence for a long duration of 20 days and he has exercised his power arbitrarily and in gross violation to the rights of the petitioner. They also contend that the authority should have seen that in the absence of any rules and regulations and guidelines governing the period for which the licence should be suspended viz-a-viz the alleged violation, the power to suspend should be reasonably and fairly exercised taking note of the precedents, the circumstances, the conduct of the theatre owner and various other similar factors. In the present case, the authority had acted in an unjustifiable manner in suspending the licence for 20 days without considering the reasonableness of the explanation offered and in such circumstances the order is bad for non-application of mind and evidently shows colourable exercise of power. According to the petitioner the power conferred on the authority to suspend the licence and initiate such coercive action is not borne out of any rules or regulations and in the absence of any skeleton framework to permit the Licensing Authority to deal with the violations to his whims and fancies would amount to unbridled conferring of power on such authority and such a delegation of power is impermissible in law. Further the authority should have seen that mere payment of fine cannot attribute wilful disobedience of the terms and conditions of licence and such a presumption is bad in law. The authority should come to an independent conclusion as to the nature of the offence and whether it has been committed wilfully or it had occurred due to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and in the absence of any specific finding the order of the respondent dated 27-7-92 stands vitiated. Further according to them the authority should have seen that a personal hearing of the theatre owner is a sine qua non before final orders of suspension are passed and in the absence of a reasonable procedure being followed, the order is liable to be quashed as being made in violation of the elementary principles of natural justice. It is also their case that the rule itself is not happily drafted since the theatre owners are left at the mercy of the licensing authority and the latter may adopt any procedure and impose any punishment or exonerate the theatre owner, all depending upon his satisfaction. Now law or regulation governs his area of exercise of power and this leads to arbitrariness and unequal treatment being meted out to various persons committing the same offence willingly or unwillingly. Now law or regulation governs his area of exercise of power and this leads to arbitrariness and unequal treatment being meted out to various persons committing the same offence willingly or unwillingly. He also contends that the punishment awarded to him is onerous, excessive and burdensome. He is deeply aggrieved and he does not have any other alternative or efficacious remedy than to move this Court and hence this writ petition. 7. Per contra, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent inter alia it is contended by them that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudiyatham West, Gudiyatham on 6-1-92 detected certain irregularities. 139 persons were admitted without tickets in excess of the 21 persons entered in the Daily Collection register. That apart excess admission of 4 persons in the 1st class. For the above irregularities action under Sections 6 and 14 (1) (a) of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 was taken and as a result the licensee was permitted to compound the offence for Rs. 1000/-. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Vellore requested to take action against the licensee for the above irregularities under Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the licensee against suspension of the licence for a period of 60 days under Section 9 (1) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955. The Licensee received the notice from the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham. The licensee was directed to offer his explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and he was specifically informed that if his explanation was not received in the stipulated time, it would be construed that he had no explanation to offer and orders will be passed accordingly. As no explanation was received from the Licensee, his predecessor passed orders suspending the 'C' Form Licence of the theatre for a period of 20 days in this Office Proceedings D.Dis.22215/92, dated 27-7-92. The licensee was directed in this office Proceedings D. Dis.67209/92, dated 26-2-93 to give effect to the suspension from 1-4-93 to 20-4-93. Aggrieved by the above order of suspension, the licensee has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the respondents that the writ petitioner had come to adverse notice of the authorities even before the present issue. Aggrieved by the above order of suspension, the licensee has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the respondents that the writ petitioner had come to adverse notice of the authorities even before the present issue. He admitted 347 persons without tickets for the show and excess admission of 63 persons than the permitted accommodation of 298 persons as per 'C' Form Licence and when action was initiated against the licensee, he has compounded the offence for Rs. 1000/- under Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 and based on this office proceedings D.Dis. 787/92, dated 24-6-92 for a period of 30 days and the licensee was directed to implement the above orders from 1-7-93 to 30-7-93. Therefore, according to them the present irregularity follows the first one narrated above. The explanation given by the petitioner is only an afterthought and imaginary. It is their case that the permitted accommodation of the theatre was 298 and at the time of inspection there was only 160 persons found in the auditorium and hence the petitioner's contention that there was a heavy rush at the time of issue of tickets, and the management was not able to resist the public entering into the theatre without ticket is totally false and also that no further enquiry need be conducted as there was evidence to prove that the writ petitioner accepted and compounded the offence. Further it is their categoric contention that as the writ petitioner had compounded the offence punishable under Section 14 (1) of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, the order of suspension passed exercising the powers conferred on the Licensing Authority under Section 9 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act is correct. Further according to him, the Commercial Tax Authorities had also detected on 9-12-91 that the writ petitioner had admitted 347 persons without tickets and hence the writ petitioner had compounded the same offence of admitting persons without tickets previously also and hence the order of suspension of the 'C' Form licence for 20 days is justified. It is also their case that the question of giving personal hearing does not arise since he accepted the offence and compounded it. They also contend that as far as the licensee is running the theatre complying with the rules and regulations no confrontation arises. It is also their case that the question of giving personal hearing does not arise since he accepted the offence and compounded it. They also contend that as far as the licensee is running the theatre complying with the rules and regulations no confrontation arises. To prevent the licensees in indulging in malpractice and violating the rules and regulations, the Licensing Authorities should be empowered with such power as conferred under Section 9 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act. Thus it is their case that as the writ petitioner had compounded the offence the order of suspension passed is correct and is justified and that, therefore, the writ petition deserves rejection on devoid of merits. 8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter-claims made by the rival parties, the following are the admitted facts. The petitioner herein is running the theatre 'Saravana Talkies'. On 6-1-1992 an inspection was made by the Sales Tax Authorities and they have found excess number of persons more than what is permissible under the 'C' Form licence. Action was initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act and he paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- as fine. Thereafter a notice came to be issued on 14-3-92 to show cause why action should not be initiated for suspending the 'C' Form licence for a period of 60 days. He sent a reply. In such circumstances of the case, it is the grievance of the petitioner herein that on receipt of the reply even without conducting an enquiry an order has been passed on 27-7-92 suspending the licence for a period of 20 days and he challenges the order of suspension in this writ petition. In this case it is very clear and admitted that during the inspection of the theatre in question by the authorities concerned certain irregularities were detected viz., admission of 139 persons without tickets in excess of the 21 persons entered in the DCR and for the above irregularity action under Ss. 6 and 14 (1) (a) of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act was taken and as a result the licensee was permitted to compound the offence for Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner. 6 and 14 (1) (a) of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act was taken and as a result the licensee was permitted to compound the offence for Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner. Commercial Tax, Vellore requested to take action against the licensee for the above irregularities under Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act 1955 and which ultimately ended in the order impugned in this writ petition whereby order of suspension of licence was made. In this case it is not denied that there was no such irregularity found out by the authorities. But he admits that he has accepted the offence and paid compounding fine. It is also claimed by the petitioner herein that even on receipt of the reply sent by him without conducting any enquiry the order of suspension was passed. That being so, it is significant to note that the composition of offence means acceptance of the offence. In such circumstances it is contended by the respondent that no further enquiry need be conducted as there was evidence to prove that the writ petitioner accepted and compounded the offence. In this case it is significant to note that no show cause notice or enquiry is contemplated under Sec. 9 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act. That apart the writ petitioner had compounded the same offence of admitting persons without tickets previously also. Therefore it is contended by the respondent that since the petitioner has compounded the offence and paid fine, the order of suspension of 'C' form licence is justified. According to the respondent's contention the question of giving personal hearing does not at all arise since he accepted the offence and compounded it. It is significant to note that licensees are issued with licenses to run the theatres only in compliance with the provision of the Act and rules made thereunder and the conditions or restriction upon which the licence had been granted and as far as the licensee is running the theatre complying with the rules and regulation no confrontation arises and further to prevent the licensees in indulging in malpractices and violating the rules and regulations, the licensing authorities should be empowered with such power as conferred under Section 9 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act. Admittedly in this case the writ petitioner had admitted 139 persons without tickets and admitted 4 persons in excess than the permitted accommodation in 1st class, and the writ petitioner had compounded the offence and that therefore it is contended by the respondent herein that the order of suspension is correct and justified. I see every force in the above contentions raised by the respondent. Whereas I see no merit whatsoever in the various contentions raised by the petitioner herein challenging the impugned order and that therefore all those contentions are rejected. 9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of the case I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out any case in his 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 WMP No. 9455/93 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.