K. J. ROHEE, J.:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. On 28.04.2004 Shri. R. K. Kharat, Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur City raided Vijay Talkies. It was alleged that the punter found that obscene film was being exhibited in the talkies. In that connection Crime No.3035/2001 under Sections 292, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of Cinematography Act was registered against the proprietor and employees of Vijay Talkies at Police Station, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur. 5. On 5th May, 2004 a show cause notice was issued to the proprietor of Vijay Talkies by Joint Commissioner of Police. Nagpur City (Respondent No.3) calling upon him to show cause as to why his licence under Bombay Cinemas (Regulation Act), 1953 should not be cancelled. In response to show cause notice the appellant submitted his reply on 20th May, 2004. In paragraph No.7 of the said reply it was submitted by the appellant that the Commissioner of Police, who is licencing authority under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953, has no power of sub-delegation. There is no dispute that under Section 4 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 the licencing authority is the "Commissioner", The power to cancel licence vests under Section 8 of the Act in the Licencing Authority. On 18.01.2005 Respondent 'No.3 passed an order cancelling the licence of the appellant. The appellant challenged the said order before the State Government under Section 8-A of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. The appellant specifically raised ground No.4 to the effect that the Joint Commissioner of Police has no power to cancel the licence granted by the Commissioner of Police. It was also mentioned in ground No.4 that sub-delegation of power by the Commissioner of Police to Joint Commissioner is bad for want of express provision in the statute. By order dated 15.042005 the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3). The said order shows that it was urged on behalf of appellant that respondent No.3 had no power to cancel the licence. However, this submission was negatived by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister by holding that under Section 8 of Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 read with Rule 131 of the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966, Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3) was empowered to cancel the licence. However, this submission was negatived by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister by holding that under Section 8 of Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 read with Rule 131 of the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966, Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3) was empowered to cancel the licence. The order does not however give any clue as to why the Hon'ble Minister came to such conclusion. 6. Thereafter the appellant filed Writ Petition No.941 of 2007 challenging the order of the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister raising the same grounds. While countering those grounds it was urged on behalf of the learned A.G.P. that Section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 clearly provides that power of cancelling licence can be exercised either by Deputy Commissioner of Police or by Joint Commissioner of Police. 7. While dealing with this submission, in paragraph 9 of the order, the learned Single Judge held that the submission made by the appellant/petitioner about delegation of power is misconceived. The learned single Judge further observed that Section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 clearly provides for exercise of powers of the Commissioner and that it is not the case of the petitioner (present appellant) that the Commissioner did not authorise the Joint Commissioner of Police to perform his power. Consequently the learned single Judge held that he did not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner (present appellant) and that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. He, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. The said order is under challenge. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Section 7 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It reads thus: "7. Commissioner. (a) The State Government may appoint a Police Officer to be the Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay or any other area specified in a notification issued by the State Government in this behalf and published in the Official Gazette. (b) The State Government may also appoint one or more Additional Commissioners of Police and one or more Joint Commissioners for any the areas specified in Clause (a). (c) The Commissioner shall exercise such powers, perform such functions and duties and shall have such responsibilities and authority as are provided by or under this Actor as may otherwise be directed by the State Government by a general or special order" 9. (c) The Commissioner shall exercise such powers, perform such functions and duties and shall have such responsibilities and authority as are provided by or under this Actor as may otherwise be directed by the State Government by a general or special order" 9. A bare perusal of Section 7 shows that it neither provides for delegation of powers by the Commissioner of Police to the Additional Commissioner of Police or to the Joint Commissioner of Police, nor does it say that Additional/Joint Commissioners shall also exercise powers of the Commissioner. 10. This contrasts with provisions of Section 10 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 which reads thus: "10. Deputies to commissioner. (1) The State Government may appoint one or more Deputy Commissioners of Police in Greater Bombay or in any area in which a Commissioner has been appointed under clause (a) of section 7. (2) Every such Deputy Commissioner shall, under the orders of the Commissioner, exercise and perform any of the powers, functions and duties of the Commissioner to be exercised or performed by him under the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force." 11. It may be noted that, under Section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act every such Deputy Commissioner shall, under the orders of the Commissioner, exercise and perform any of the powers, functions and duties of the Commissioner to be exercised or performed by him under the provisions of this Act or any or any other law for the time being in force. However, no such provision has been made in Section 7 of the Bombay Police Act even after amendments to Section 7(b) in 1974 and in 2000. Had the legislature so intended, it could have amended Section 7 to provide that the Additional Commissioners of Police or Joint Commissioners shall exercise and perform the powers of the Commissioners under the orders of the Commissioners. The omission is glaring particularly when the legislature has specifically provided for delegation under Section 10. It is, thus, obvious that the Commissioner was not intended by the legislature to delegate his powers to the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner. Section 10 of the Bombay Police Act does not all refer to a Joint or Additional Commissioner. The omission is glaring particularly when the legislature has specifically provided for delegation under Section 10. It is, thus, obvious that the Commissioner was not intended by the legislature to delegate his powers to the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner. Section 10 of the Bombay Police Act does not all refer to a Joint or Additional Commissioner. It is not clear as to how the learned Single Judge held that Section 10 could be read as authorising delegation of powers to Joint Commissioner. Clause 19 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 reads as under: "19. (1) In any Bombay Act (or Maharashtra Act) made after the commencement of this Act it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of expressing that a law relative to the chief or superior of an office shall apply to the deputies or subordinates lawfully performing the duties of that office in the place of their superior, to prescribe the duty of the superior. (2) This section applies also to all Bombay Acts made before the commencement of this Act." 12. It is not clear to us as to how delegation to a subordinate (Deputy Commissioner), permissible under Section 10 of the Bombay Police Act could be read to authorise delegation to a superior (Joint Commissioner) by resorting to the clause "that a law relative to the chief of Superior of an office shall apply to deputies." 13. In view of this position the Joint Commissioner (Respondent No.3) was not empowered to issue show cause notice to the appellant and to proceed to cancel the licence of the appellant. Thus, Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3) acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the licence of the appellant. 14. In view of this legal position the impugned order of respondent No.3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it will have to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appellate order as well as the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. We, therefore, pass following order. ORDER a) The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. Order dated 10.10.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.941 of 2007, order dated 15.04.2005 passed by Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister and order dated 18.01.2005 passed by Joint Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3), are hereby quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.