Judgment :- The petitioners in these writ petitions are Licensees under the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act and Rules. The petitioners by their respective representations dated 5-4-1999, 2-12-1998, and 2-12-1998, requested the respondent Licensing authority to re-fix the rates of admission to each class of accommodation. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16271 of 1999 requested the revision of rates of admission to each class of accommodation as mentioned below : CLASS NUMBER OF SEATS PRESENT RATE PROPOSED RATE (Rs. P.) (Rs. P.) 1. BALCONY 100 27.25 41.00 2. I-CLASS 132 22.25 33.50 3. II-CLASS 100 15.25 23.00 4. III-CLASS 90 7.25 7.25 (No change) 3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 17667 of 1998 by his representation dated 2-12-1998 requested the revision of rates of admission to each class of accommodation as mentioned below : CLASSNUMBER OF SEATSPRESENT RATEPROPOSED RATE(Rs. P.)(Rs. P.)1.I-CLASS15622.2533.502.II-CLASS7015.2523.003.III-CLASS82 5.00 5.00 4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 17278 of 1998 by his representation dated 2-12-1998 requested the revision of rates of admission to each class of accommodation as mentioned below : CLASSNUMBER OF SEATSPRESENT RATEPROPOSED RATE(Rs. P.)(Rs. P.)1.BALCONY8927.2541.002.I-CLASS24822.2533.503.II-CLASS23215.2523.004.III-CLASS143 6.00 6.00(No change) 5. However, the respondent/licensing authority by proceedings (1) Na. Ka. No. E3/(1)/141/24883/99 dated 6-9-1999 (2) Na. Ka. No. E3 (1)/701/88120/98 dated 23-2-1999 and (3) Na. Ka. No. E3 (1)/699/88118/98 dated 23-2-1999 that are impugned in the above writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 16271, 17278 and 17667 of 1999 permitted the revision of rates only in part. Hence, the above writ petitions seeking to quash the proceedings (1) Na. Ka. No. E3/(1)/141/24883/99 dated 6-9-1999, (2) Na. Ka. No. E3 (1)/701/88120/98 dated 23-2-1999 and (3) Na. Ka. No. E3 (1)/699/88118/98 dated 23-2-1999 respectively and a consequential direction to the licensing authority/respondent herein to consider the application of the petitioners dated 5-4-1999, 2-12-1998 and 2-12-1998 respectively for fixing the rate of admission in their theatres. 6. It is not in dispute that by the respective representations dated 5-4-1999, 2-12-1998 and 5-4-1998, the petitioners explained in detail the amenities provided in their respective theatres such as car parking. Air-conditioning, additional sanitary facilities and other hi-tech projectors, etc. The petitioners have also explained in detail the facilities, amenities and other salient technical features such as sound system and lighting system etc. that are specially designed and provided in their respective theatres with advanced technology as similar to the theatres located in the City. 7. Air-conditioning, additional sanitary facilities and other hi-tech projectors, etc. The petitioners have also explained in detail the facilities, amenities and other salient technical features such as sound system and lighting system etc. that are specially designed and provided in their respective theatres with advanced technology as similar to the theatres located in the City. 7. However, in the impugned orders the respondent/licensing authority had only stated that they have considered the request of the respective petitioners carefully in the light of the rates of admission in the nearby theatres and allowed the revision of rates in part . 8. In this connection, Mr. R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10271 of 1999 placing reliance on Rule 83 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules, contends that the respondent/licensing authority had not taken note of Rule 83 (1-A) (a) of the Cinema Regulation Rules and failed to consider the request for the revision of rates of admission as per Rule 83 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules and further contends that the licensing authority allowed the revision of rates only in part even without hearing the petitioners which is illegal and contrary to Rule 83(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules and also violative of the principles of natural justice. 9. Mr. R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 16271 of 1999 also placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 9-11-1998 made in W.P. No. 14213 of 1998 (reported in 1999 (1) Mad. LJ 623) and seeks the relief as prayed for. 10. Per contra Mr. K. Balsubramanian learned Government Advocate reiterated the contentions of the respondent/licensing authority as averred in the respective counter-affidavits and contends that the respondent/ licensing authority had considered the request of the petitioners for revision of rates of admission to each class of accommodation in the light of the rates of admission in the nearby theatres before passing the impugned order and therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings dated 6-9-1999, 23-2-1999 and 23-2-1999 respectively inasmuch as the same are neither contrary to Rule 83 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules nor violative of the principles of natural justice. 11. 11. Even though it is stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent/Licensing Authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, taking into consideration the quality of audience who are likely to view the movie in the petitioner's theatres the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/licensing authority fairly stated that the said contention is not tenable as the quality of audience is not a criteria for deciding the issue. 12. I have given careful consideration on the submissions made by both sides. 13. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Rule 83 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957 which reads as follows : "The licensing authority shall fix the actual rates of admission to each class of accommodation provided in the auditorium after taking into account the proposals of the licensee, the amenities provided in the theatre, the prevailing rates of admission in similar theatres in similar localities within the jurisdiction and any other relevant factor." 14. While fixing the actual rate of admission, the respondent/licensing authority is under statutory obligation to consider (1) the amenities provided in the theatre and (2) the prevailing rate of admission in the similar theatres in similar locality within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. A close reading of the above Rule 83 (1-A) (a) makes it clear that while considering the proposal of the licensees for re-fixing the actual rate of admission, the amenties provided in the theatre relating to audience, projectors, lighting etc. which also includes the other sanitary facilities, car-parking etc. have to be taken into account. 15. That apart, the prevailing rates of admission in similar theatres need not be of the same locality. The rule only necessitated a similar theatre in a similar locality. Therefore, it need not be in the same locality if the licensing authority satisfies that the petitioners provided the similar amenities which are provided in the similar locality. In different locality, if those amenities are similar, the licensing authority is under obligation to consider the request of the licencees. But in the instant case, the licensing authority had considered the rate of admission of the nearby theatres in the same locality, but not the rates of admission in a similar theatre in a similar locality. In different locality, if those amenities are similar, the licensing authority is under obligation to consider the request of the licencees. But in the instant case, the licensing authority had considered the rate of admission of the nearby theatres in the same locality, but not the rates of admission in a similar theatre in a similar locality. There cannot be any doubt that the amenities provided in a similar theatre in different locality are different from the amenities provided in the same locality. Since the licensing authority in the impugned order has taken into consideration the rates of admission in the nearby theatres, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is contrary to Rule 83 (1-A) of the Cinema Regulation Act. That apart, once the rule contemplates that the licensing authority while considering the proposal of revision of rates of admission to each class of accommodation, they should consider the amenties provided in the theatre and the licensing authority shall not pass a mere administrative order without either inspecting the theatre or giving an opportunity to the petitioners for hearing, because the amenities provided in the theatre are expected to be inspected and verified factually before fixing the actual rate of admission. The proceedings that are impugned in the writ petitions does not reflect any such inspection of the theatre or disclose that the licensing authority had inspected and provided an opportunity of being heard the petitioners before passing the impugned order. Therefore even on that account, the impugned proceedings are vitiated. The mere fact of observation that the respondents have considered carefully the request of the petitioners with reference to the revision of rates of admission in the nearby theatres are therefore sufficient to satisfy the requirements contemplated under Rule 83 (1-A) of the Cinema Regulations Rules. In the impugned order, it is not even stated that the respondent had considered all the materials required under the rules. 16. S.S. Subramani, J. in a similar circumstance in W.P. No. 14213 of 1998 dated 9-11-1998 (reported in 1999 (1) Mad. LJ 623) has held as follows : "Even though respondent is passing only administrative orders, the rights of the petitioner are affected and naturally petitioner is entitled to know the reasons why the rates demanded by them cannot be allowed. It cannot be based on the subjective satisfaction of respondent." 17. LJ 623) has held as follows : "Even though respondent is passing only administrative orders, the rights of the petitioner are affected and naturally petitioner is entitled to know the reasons why the rates demanded by them cannot be allowed. It cannot be based on the subjective satisfaction of respondent." 17. Hence as held by this Court by an order dated 9-11-1998 in W.P. No. 14213 of 1998 (reported in 1999 (1) Mad.LJ 623), the licensing authority is required to enquire into the matter and the petitioners are to be heard in this regard before passing any such order, particularly when the licensing authority is not willing to revise the rates as proposed by the licensees. Moreover, even though the respondents have stated that they have taken into account the quality of audience who are viewing the movies in the theatre with that of the theatre located in the city and comparing the same and since the learned Government Advocate fairly states that he is withdrawing such a condition, I do not propose to express any opinion in this regard. 18. For all these reasons, the impugned orders are quashed and consequently the matters are remitted to the respondent/licensing authority with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners, inspect the theatres giving them an opportunity to explain as to the amenities provided in the theatres for revision of rates on par with those of similar theatres in the similar localities in compliance with Rule 83 (1-A) of Cinema Regulation Rules and pass appropriate orders on merits, in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly No costs. Order accordingly.