Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The above writ petition is directed against the order of the Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore made in his proceedings dated 1-7-93 suspending the "C" Form licence of the petitioner's permanent Cinema theatre called "Sri Devi Theatre" in Palanipet, Arakkonam for 5 days from 1-8-93 to 5-8-93. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :- The petitioners are licensees of permanent cinema theatre called 'Sri Devi Theatre' in Palanipet, Arakonam. They have been running the theatre in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and the conditions of the 'C' Form licence. While so, the respondent in his proceedings dated 1-7-93 suspending the 'C' Form licence of the theatre for 5 days from 1-8-93 to 5-8-93 on the ground that at the time of inspection by the Entertainment Tax Officer on 17-2-93, they noticed that the licensee admitted 84 persons without valid tickets, for that the compounding fee of Rs. 500/- was collected by them. In order to avoid unpleasant events during the show time and with compulsion, the petitioners paid a compounding fee of Rs. 500/-. Against the said order of compounding, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vellore and the same is pending. While at this stage, without giving any show cause notice calling for explanation, the respondent herein passed the order of suspension of 'C' Form licence for 5 days under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. At the time of inspection, the inspecting officers found that 84 persons were admitted without tickets and in excess of the entries in the daily collection register. The offence was compounded by the licensee of the theatre for Rs. 500/-. Admitting excess persons in the Auditorium without proper ticket is an offence punishable under Section 14(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Act, 1939. As it has been brought to the notice of the licensing authority, that the writ petitioner had compounded such an offence, the provision of Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 were invoked. He passed orders suspending 'C' form licence of the theatre in proceedings dated 1-7-93 for a period of 5 days. As it has been brought to the notice of the licensing authority, that the writ petitioner had compounded such an offence, the provision of Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 were invoked. He passed orders suspending 'C' form licence of the theatre in proceedings dated 1-7-93 for a period of 5 days. The respondent is fully justified in passing the impugned order, more particularly in view of the admission of the guilt and compounding for violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act and there is no merit in the writ petition. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate. 5. The only point for consideration is whether the respondent-District Collector is justified in suspending the 'C' Form licence of the petitioner theatre for a period of 5 days merely on the basis of compounding for violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act ? 6. There is no dispute that pursuant to the surprise inspection made on 17-2-93 and in respect of admitting 84 persons without valid tickets, the petitioner licensee had compounded and paid Rs. 500/-. However, it is the case of the petitioner that against the said order, he had filed an appeal to the appellate authority and the same is still pending. Based on the compounding for violating the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the respondent herein by invoking Section 9(1) of Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cinema (Regulation) Act), passed the impugned order suspending the 'C' form licence for a period of 5 days. Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that without a show cause notice and due enquiry, the impugned order suspending 'C' form licence cannot be sustained. The very same question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. Jagadeesan and E. Padmanabhan, JJ., in the case of Sri Kamatchi Theatre v. District Collector, Madurai, 2000 (2) Mad LW 255. The very same question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. Jagadeesan and E. Padmanabhan, JJ., in the case of Sri Kamatchi Theatre v. District Collector, Madurai, 2000 (2) Mad LW 255. The Division Bench was asked to consider whether the Collector has to issue show cause notice and hold an enquiry under Section 9(2) of the Cinema (Regulation) Act before taking action under Section 9(1), based upon compounding of the offences under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act. The Division Bench after considering the relevant provisions from both the enactments as well as the earlier case laws have concluded thus :- (para 61) "61. . . . . . . . . . . As already pointed out, there has been compounding of the offences under Section 15 of the Entertainment Tax Act and based upon that compounding, further action is taken under Section 9(1) and therefore, as provided in Section 9(2), a show cause notice alone is sufficient, and it is not necessary to hold a detailed enquiry. . . . . . . . . . . . . .". They further observed in para 62 as follows :- " 62. In other words, we hold that when once the licensee is permitted to compound the offence, which means that there exists a pre-existing conviction or order of composition which does not require any further enquiry and it would be sufficient to issue a show cause notice as provided in sub-section (2) of Sec. 9. We also make it clear that when the petitioners themselves had concedingly admitted the irregularities by compounding the offences, nothing more is required to hold that the petitioner or their managers or agents or attorneys have violated the licensing conditions, and no further enquiry is warranted for an action being taken under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Act and the authority is well justified in passing an order after issuing the show cause notice." The abovesaid Division Bench judgment which is directly on the point makes it clear that in a case like this, namely, after compounding for violation of certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, the licensing authority, namely, the District Collector is competent to take action under Section 9(1) of the Cinema (Regulation) Act. It is also clear that before taking any action under Section 9(1) of the Cinema (Regulation) Act, in view of admission of the guilt and compounding, the only opportunity to be fulfilled is issuance of show cause notice under Section 9(2) of the Cinema (Regulation) Act and no detailed enquiry is required. 7. It is also brought to my notice a decision of S. Jagadeesan, J., in Krishna Theatre v. Collector of Madurai, 2000 (2) CTC 143 . In the case before the learned Judge the petitioner was charged with collection of excess fare and for violation of licence conditions as well as evasion of entertainment tax, the petitioner compounded the offence by paying compounding fee. The respondent therein passed an order of suspension of 'C' form licence for a period of 30 days without issuing show cause notice. The learned Judge even though considered the Division Bench decision rendered in W. P. No. 12640/94 etc., dated 11-11-1999 (since reported in 2000 (2) Mad LW 255) in which he is also a party, by referring a decision of the Supreme Court in Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal, has made the following conclusion :- "So the principle of issue of show-cause notice is necessary in order to give an opportunity to the aggrieved to submit the explanation before ever any final order is to be passed. But when the final order is to be passed is on the basis of the admission of the aggrieved himself, then there is no need to issue any show-cause notice, as the final order is based only on the admission made by the aggrieved and not by any other fresh material within the knowledge of the punishing authority. Based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above case, there is absolutely no necessity to issue the show-cause notice as contemplated under Section 9(2) of the said Act for the completion of the empty formality before ever any order is to be passed under Section 9(1) of the said Act; where such order is based on the compounding of the offences or violations by the licensee. Hence, the non-issue of the show-cause notice by the respondent before ever the impugned order of suspension was passed will not vitiate the impugned order either on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise. . Hence, the non-issue of the show-cause notice by the respondent before ever the impugned order of suspension was passed will not vitiate the impugned order either on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise. . . . . . . . . ." I have already extracted the conclusion of the Division Bench of this Court in which the very same provisions had been dealt with. I have already stated that the cases before the Division Bench were concerning the orders of suspension of 'C' form licence, after issue of show-cause notice as contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act. It is further clear that when the person admits the guilt, namely, violation of certain provisions of the Entertainment Tax Act and pays necessary fees by way of compounding, in terms of Section 9(2) of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act, a show cause notice has to be issued and no further or detailed enquiry is required. That is the law laid down by the aforesaid Division Bench. No doubt, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that where allegations and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned, no further enquiry need be made. A reading of the said decision makes it clear that when allegations and charges are admitted, no further enquiry is required. Here, in our case, the admission of guilt by the petitioner is with reference to violations of certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act. Even for this, the petitioner has asserted that they had already filed appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Vellore and the same is pending. In such a circumstance, if the District Collector wants to take action based on the compounding made under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, as observed by the Division Bench in 2000 (2) Mad LW 255 (cited supra), I am of the view that the competent authority, namely, the District Collector is bound to issue show cause notice to the person concerned and pass an appropriate order thereafter. Though no further or detailed enquiry is required before taking action under Section 9(1) of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act as observed by the Division Bench, show cause notice alone is to be issued under Section 9(2). Though no further or detailed enquiry is required before taking action under Section 9(1) of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act as observed by the Division Bench, show cause notice alone is to be issued under Section 9(2). Inasmuch as the Division Bench decision referred to above is directly on the point and as the decision referred to by Jagadeesan, J., namely speaks about "enquiry", I hold that non-issue of show cause notice by the respondent before passing the order of suspension vitiates the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as held by the Division Bench in 2000 (2) Mad LW 255. As observed earlier, since the decision of the Apex Court speaks only about "enquiry" and we are concerned with giving an opportunity by way of "show cause notice", with respect, I am unable to share the view expressed by the learned Judge rendered in 2000 (2) CTC 143 (cited supra), and I am bound by the Division Bench decision reported in 2000 (2) Mad LW 255 which is directly on the point. On this ground, the impugned order of the respondent dated 1-7-1993 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. It is open to the respondent to issue show-cause notice under Section 9(2) of the Cinemas (Regulation) Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Both the miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petition allowed.