Judgment :- Chitra Venkataraman, J. The writ appeal is filed by the State against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No. 7139 of 1987 dated 1. 1997. 2. Though the respondent has been served as early as 35. 2005 none appeared for the respondent. .3. The respondent herein filed writ petition challenging the order of the Government reducing the period of suspension from nine months to six months. The writ petitioner is the theatre owner. Proceedings were initiated against the theatre owner for running the theatre without valid C Form licence. Originally on 20.5.1986, when the Tahsildar inspected the theatre he found that the writ petitioner was running the theatre from 15. 1986 to 20.5.1986 without valid C Form licence and when this was questioned by the authority, no proper explanation was offered by the writ petitioner. Apart from that the District Collector in his proceedings has also found that on 20.5.1986, when the Tahsidlar had gone for inspection, the father-in-law of the licensee abused the Tahsildar and mis-behaved with him and also prevented the licensing authority from making inspection of the theatre which would amount to violation of condition No.7 of C Form and Rule 10 of Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1955. Further, the Electrical Inspector in his report has pointed out that the licensee had changed the electrical equipments without prior permission of the licensing authority and that by using the instruments, the licensee had violated Rule 76(1) of the Act and not carried out the defects as pointed out by the Electrical Inspector within the stipulated time thereby the licensee violated Rule 8 of the Act. The District Collector on finding that all charges were proved, suspended the C Form licence for a period of one year from 11. 1986 to 310. 1987. Aggrieved by this order, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. The Special Commissioner by his order dated 210. 1986 taking lenient view in this matter, while modifying the order of the District Collector, reduced the period of suspension from one year to nine months only to run from 11. 1986 to 37. 1987. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Commissioner, the writ petitioner preferred revision petition before the Government. By order dated 24. 1987, the Government observed that the licensee is responsible for the act of omissions and commissions. 1986 to 37. 1987. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Commissioner, the writ petitioner preferred revision petition before the Government. By order dated 24. 1987, the Government observed that the licensee is responsible for the act of omissions and commissions. Further, the Government also pointed out that the Commissioner of Land Administration took a lenient view and reduced the period of suspension from one year to nine months and dismissed the appeal. In such view of the matter, the Government taking lenient view reduced the period of suspension of C Form licence further from nine months to six months. Aggrieved by the order of the Government, the respondent herein filed writ petition before this Court seeking to quash the said order. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of the respondents. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the State has preferred the present writ appeal. .4. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that the learned single Judge taking note of the inaction pursuant to the criminal complaint, which is totally extraneous to the other grave charges levelled against the writ petitioner, ultimately held that there is nothing on record to show that the complaint against the petitioner was enquired into and a charge sheet has been filed in the competent court. Even after expiry of C Form licence, when the Tahsildar inspected the theatre on 20.5.1986, the show was conducted in the theatre in violation of the licence conditions. Hence the contention of the writ petitioner and the finding of the learned single Judge has no relevance to the charges levelled against the writ petitioner in the matter of suspending the C Form licence. With the above grounds, the State has filed the writ appeal challenging the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge. 5. We heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant and perused the materials on record. 6. Without considering the violations alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on grounds not germane to the decision. 5. We heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant and perused the materials on record. 6. Without considering the violations alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on grounds not germane to the decision. The Government, by taking a lenient view, had already reduced the suspension period from nine months to six months in the revision petition by modifying the order of the Special Commissioner, who had earlier in the appeal preferred by the respondent herein reduced the suspension period from one year to nine months on the ground that the respondent had a good conduct. It must be seen that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 were taken particularly for the violation of Section 92(1) and Section 3 of the Act. The suspension of the licence had nothing to do with the criminal complaint against the writ petitioner. The charges levelled against the writ petitioner are as follows:- a) The "C" Form Licence expired on 15. 86 and we have applied only on 15. 86 for renewal. It is in violation of 1957 TNC(R) R. Section 92(1). b) On 20.5.1986, the Tahsildar has inspected the theatre and the father-in-law of the owner has obstructed his duties and it is in violation C" Form Licence condition No.7 and 1957 TNC (R) R Rule 10. c) There is no C Form Licence for running the theatre between 15. 1986 to 20.5.896 and it is in violation of 1955 TNC (R) Act Section 3. d) The Electrical Inspector has inspected the theatre on 35. 1985 and reported that the theatre equipments have been changed without the prior permission of the Collector and it is in violation of 1957 TNC (R) rule 6(1) and Rule 8. e) For the period from 25. 1985 to 33. 86 no electrical wiremen has been engaged for the theatre. It is in violation of 1957 TNC (R) R.Rule 74(2). Considering the nature of the violations, the statutory authorities considered the merits of the respondents claim and reduced the period of suspension. Considering the same, we do not agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the Government by allowing the writ petition. Considering the same, we do not agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the Government by allowing the writ petition. In such view of the matter, in the absence of any convincing reason to counter the violation, we are of the view that the writ appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge stands reversed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P is closed. No costs.