Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorari praying to call for the records of the Respondent made in his proceedings in Roc.No.43772/01-19 dated 22.06.2003 for suspending the C Form license of the Petitioners Theatre called Ramesh Theatre at Palani for 5 days viz., 15.07.2003 to 19.07.2003 and to quash the same. 2. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Respondent in Roc.No.43772/01-19 dated 22.06.2003 in regard to the suspension of C-Form License of the Petitioners Ramesh Theatre at Palani District for 5 days 15.07.2003 to 19.07.2003 is an illegal and arbitrary one and the said order is not valid in law because of the simple fact that the Respondent failed to decide the issue whether the compounding of an offence made in the present case comes within the ambit of Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955 and in the absence of such a determination, the Authority concerned has no jurisdiction to suspend the license in issue. 3. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent failed to notice that the alleged irregularities viz., Daily Collection Report has not been written by the Licensee for which they have paid a compounding fee of Rs.1,000/- and indeed, there is no tax evasion. 4. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner, the act of not writing the Daily Collection Report in time is not an irregularity as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act 1955 and the Rules thereon. 5. Expatiating his arguments, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner that the alleged offence said to have been committed in the present case is not punishable under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act 1955 and the Rules by way of suspending the Theatre since as per Section 9(1) contemplated only, the holder of a license has been convicted of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) and (c) of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Act, 1939 or has been permitted to compound offence as per Section 15 of the said Act. 6. 6. The plea of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Act of compounding has not been made as an offence as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Act and therefore, the order of the Respondent/District Collector in suspending the C Form License by invocation of Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 is a non-application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that the order of the Respondent in suspending the C Form License for 5 days is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner has asked for personal hearing in his explanation sent through its counsel before passing of the final orders, the Respondent has not provided such an opportunity to the Petitioner and in any event, the suspension of C Form License for 5 days is an excessive, arbitrary and unwarranted one and therefore, it is liable to be set aside to prevent an aberration of justice. 8. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of the contention that when an individual has compounded the offence nothing more is further required to be done cites the Division Bench Judgment of this Court 2000-2-L.W.255, (W.P.20224/94) SRI KAMATCHI THEATRE, BY ITS LICENSEE K.RAMAKRISHNAN, DEVATHAMPATTI, MADURAI DISTRICT V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI, (W.P.12640/94) T.MUTHIAN, LICENSEE, NEW CINEMA THEATRE, CUDDALORE V. THE COLLECTOR, SOUTH ARCOT VALLALAR DISTRICT, CUDDALORE, (W.P.228/96) THEATE PAVALAM REP. BY ITS PARNTER K.S.SETHUPATHY V. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CUM-ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHEPAUK, MADRAS-5 AND ANOTHER, wherein it is held as follows: The expression "composition" or "compounding of offence or irregularity" means accepting the acquiescence of irregularity committed or the violation of the statutory provision and by compounding the offence, the person who is permitted to compound, admits the irregularity or violation. It may be for ever so many reasons, or it may be to avoid embarrassment or the situation, to purchase peace. By mere compounding, such an individual is not exonerated, nor a blank shield or protection cover is thrown against him for the commission or omissions for which compounding is permissible under law. It may be for ever so many reasons, or it may be to avoid embarrassment or the situation, to purchase peace. By mere compounding, such an individual is not exonerated, nor a blank shield or protection cover is thrown against him for the commission or omissions for which compounding is permissible under law. Therefore, it follows when once the licensee compounds the offence under Section 15 of the Act, it would mean that the licensee had committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence and on his application, is permitted to compound the offence. In other words, it is a clear verdict by confession to avoid penal consequences." Also, in the aforesaid decision, at pages 256 and 257, it is laid down as follows: "Section 15 of the Entertainments Tax Act is an enabling provision which enables the authorities to compound such person who has committed an offence or reasonably suspected of having committed an offence against the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. By compounding the offence, by invoking Section 15 of the Act, the licensee or the person authorised by him admits the commission or omission of those offences or violations of statutory provisions for which a penalty or fine or imprisonment is provided for, as the case may be. In other words, it is an admission of the guilt and on payment of certain compounding fee, the accused person is to be proceeded, which would not ipso facto mean that he has been cleared of the accusations or the offences committed by him. Para 52 In other words, it is an admission of the guilt which has led to the passing of an order of permission to compound, and there is nothing further to be tried or to be gone into after the licensee had been permitted to compound an offence under Section 15 of the Entertainment Tax Act. It is a verdict by confession and, therefore, the consequences follows. Para 56 The admission of facts on the part of the licensee and his application for compounding would amount to his admitting the offence or violation or commission of an offence under the Entertainments Tax Act which, by itself, is a ground for taking action under Section 9(1) of the Cinemas (Regulations) Act. Para 56 The admission of facts on the part of the licensee and his application for compounding would amount to his admitting the offence or violation or commission of an offence under the Entertainments Tax Act which, by itself, is a ground for taking action under Section 9(1) of the Cinemas (Regulations) Act. "As such, we are of the view that the approach of S.S Subramani, J., has to be sustained and we are of the considered view and with respect we hold that the view taken by Dinakaran, J., directing an enquiry to be held even after compound of offence is not warranted and such an approach would defeat the very statutory provision, as according to us, in our view compounding would mean confession of the incident or violation or offence." 9. Continuing further, in the decision aforesaid at page 257, it is held thus: "The situation in the present case is in no way different. As already pointed out, there has been compounding of the offences under Section 15 of the Entertainments 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 as has been held by Dinakaran,J. "We agree and approve the view taken by Dinakaran, J. 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."Para 61, 62 10. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner also cites the order of this Court in W.P.No. 18401 of 1998 dated 24.11.1998, THE LICENSEE, MEENAKSHI THEATRE, KUMBAKONAM TALUK, THANJAVUR DISTRICT V. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL ANDU, REP. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner also cites the order of this Court in W.P.No. 18401 of 1998 dated 24.11.1998, THE LICENSEE, MEENAKSHI THEATRE, KUMBAKONAM TALUK, THANJAVUR DISTRICT V. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL ANDU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. (HOME) CINEMA, DEPT. , FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS-9 AND 2 ANOTHER, wherein it is held as follows: "...In the result, I set aside the order of the Revisional Authority and I direct the First Respondent to consider the question as to whether there are circumstances to compound the offence under Section 8A of the Act 30 of 1997. For the said limited purpose, the matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority the First Respondent herein, which shall pass fresh orders on the same with a notice to the petitioner." He also cites the Division Bench order of this Court dated 13.11.2002 in W.A.3426 of 2002 wherein this Court has inter alia observed as follows: "...Having regard to the above fact, we lift the suspension on condition of the Appellant depositing Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Palani by tomorrow evening. If the above amount is paid, then the Appellant shall be entitled to continue the screening of the films from 15.11.2002 without reference to any suspension period." 11. Also, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that order in W.P.No.22816 of 2004 dated 12.08.2004 wherein it is held as follows: "...Having regard to the facts brought to my notice; the unreported judgment dated 26.08.2003 passed by a Learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23734 of 2003 and another unreported judgment dated 13.11.2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3426/2004, while holding that the violation alleged against the petitioner stands fully established, I am inclined to reduce the suspension period from 15 days to 7 days. The suspension order will come into effect from 16.08.2004 and will expire on 22.08.2004, both days inclusive. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.27588/2004 is closed." 12. The suspension order will come into effect from 16.08.2004 and will expire on 22.08.2004, both days inclusive. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.27588/2004 is closed." 12. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent that the Enforcement Wing officials of the Commercial Taxes Department made a surprise inspection of the Petitioners Theatre on 14.11.2001 at 10.30p.m. and has found that the Daily Collection Report has not been closed in the Theatre by the Licensee in gross violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act and a Statement to this effect has been obtained from the Licensee by the Entertainment Tax Officials and the Licensee himself admitted the offence and compounded the case by remitting a sum of Rs.1,000/- on the day itself to the Commercial Taxes Department. 13. The Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent argues that on receipt of a Report from the Commercial Taxes Department, a show cause notice has been issued to the Licensee in the proceedings Roc.No.43772/C1/01-23 dated 12.6.2002 requiring him to explain as to why action should not be taken action against him as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act, 1955, etc., and since the explanation submitted by the Licensee dated 08.07.2002 has not been accepted, the Respondent suspended the C Form License of the Petitioners Theatre for 5 days from 15.7.2003 to 19.7.2003 as per his proceedings Roc.No.43772/C1/2001-19 dated 22.6.2003. 14. The contention of the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent is that the order of the Respondent in suspending the C Form License is with reference to the violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act, 1955 and the same is valid. 15. According to the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent, whenever action is initiated by the Entertainment Tax Officials against the Licensee as per Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act and when the Licensee compounds the offence with the Commercial Taxes Department, the Respondent/District Collector on receipt of Report from the Commercial Taxes Department is to take action as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act, 1955 and in the present case, the District Collector has taken due action against the Writ Petitioner based on the Report from the Commercial Taxes Department and therefore, the action of the Respondent is valid one in the eye of law. 16. 16. In the instant case on hand, a show cause notice has been issued to the Licensee before passing the suspension order as per Section 9(1) of the Act and therefore, the contra view taken by the Petitioner is not a correct one, according to the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent. 17. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Government Advocate that once a Licensee is permitted to compound an offence under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, it is sufficient to issue a show cause notice as provided under Sub Section (2) of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act, 1955 and there is no need at all for affording a personal hearing to the Licensee. 18. This Court has heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent and noticed their contentions. 19. It is to be noted that Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act, 1955 speaks of the power of the Government or the District Collector to suspend exhibition of film in certain cases. As a matter of fact, Section 8 A of the Act confers powers on the Licensing Authority to compound the offence. Section 9 of the Act specifies the power to revoke or suspend the license. 20. It is to be borne in mind that the right to take administrative action under the condition of a license can in no way be affected by the penal sections specified in the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act, 1955 in respect of violation of any of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act, 1955 pertains to prosecution entailing the termination of license as well, and the sanction provided as per Condition 16 of the licensee issued under the Act or Rule as an administrative punishment intended to enforce. 21. Be that as it may, when the licensee has admitted the guilt and compounded the offence with any further enquiry, an order as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act, 1955 viz., suspending or cancelling the C Form license can be issued. 21. Be that as it may, when the licensee has admitted the guilt and compounded the offence with any further enquiry, an order as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act, 1955 viz., suspending or cancelling the C Form license can be issued. In the instant case on hand, a show cause notice as per Section 9(2) of the Act has been issued to the Petitioner and when the Authority as per Section 9(1) of the Act is empowered to cancel or suspend the C Form license, the issuance of show cause notice is of little avail when the cancellation is based on the mere compounding of offence by the licence and when no further enquiry is visualised, then the issuance of show cause notice will only be futile, an empty formality to be adhered to, in the considered opinion of this Court. 22. It is not out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act, 1955 compounding of an offence is not a ground to revoke or suspend license as per decision 1999 MLJ CRL 263 (MADRAS), THE LICENSEE, BHUVANESWARI TALKIES, GUDIYATHAM V. APPELLATE AUTHORITY, JOINT COMMISSIONER I, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS 8.. 23. At this juncture, this Court recalls the decision of this Court GANESH TALKIES V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NORTH ARCOT AMBEDKAR DISTRICT, 2000 (1) MLJ 658 (MADRAS) wherein for the irregularities committed by the Petitioner therein, the Tax Authorities compounding the offence and the Petitioner paying the fine amount subsequent to the notice as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act X of 1939 and the Petitioners License being cancelled for 30 days is held to be a proper one by this Court. 24. A Licensee is permitted to compound an offence as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act X of 39 can be proceeded with, as opined by this Court. 25. 24. A Licensee is permitted to compound an offence as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act X of 39 can be proceeded with, as opined by this Court. 25. A closure reading of Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulations Act No.IX of 1955 indicates that even after compounding the offence as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act 1939, the License for the cinema may be revoked or suspended and indeed, the compounding of an offence is neither a premium nor lever to revoke or suspend the license, in the considered opinion of this Court. Suffice it for this Court to point out that even after a licensee is permitted to compound an offence as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act X of 39, a Licensee can be proceeded with as per decision 2000 MLJ (SUPPL) P.168 MADRAS, PROBOTH CHANDRA GHOSH V. URMILA DASSI. 26. In regard to the compounding of an offence, it is bounded by this Court that the compounding of an offence is only a confession of an Act /offence and when a show cause notice has been issued as per sub Section 2 of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act, 1955 in a case where a Licensee compounding an offence as per provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act then there is no question of providing either reasonable opportunity of hearing or a personal hearing because of the simple fact there is nothing to be gone into after a licensee compounding the offence and in short, the Act of compounding an offence by the Writ Petitioner is nothing but a tacit confession, which is not a favourable circumstance in his favour. 27. 27. In regard to the contention that in the present case compounding has not been made as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act 1939 viz., the non preparation of Daily Collection Report in time, it is to be pointed out that Rule 32 C(1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 enjoins that the Proprietor of the Cinema Theatre is to keep a correct and complete account in Form II in duplicate in respect of all shows held everyday, etc., and that the entries shall be written up and the account closed within ninety minutes of the time notified for the commencement of the show and this account and tickets remaining in stock shall be shown to the Inspecting Officer along with other connected records when demanded etc., and in the instant case, the Commercial Taxes Department officials of the Enforcement Wing inspected the Licensee the Petitioners Theatre on 14.11.2001 at 10.30 p.m. by making a surprise visit and has found that the Daily Collection Report has not been closed and the Collector upon receipt of the Report from the Commercial Taxes Department that the Petitioner has compounded the offence has taken action as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act, 1955 and the same is in order and therefore the contra view taken by the Writ Petitioner that non preparing/writing Daily Collector Report in time is not a violation under the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Act, 1955 cannot stand a moment scrutiny in the eye of law. 28. 28. Apart from the above, this Court points out that when the Petitioner has compounded the offence by paying a sum of Rs.1,000/-then there is a pre existing conviction and therefore, the same requires any another enquiry and the ends of justice will be made if a show cause notice as per Section 9(2) is issued to the Petitioner and in the instant case on hand, a show cause notice has been issued before passing the suspension of license as per Section 9(1) of the Act and the concerned Authority is well within its purview to pass the appropriate order after issuing show cause notice and in the present case before us, the order of the Respondent in proceeding Roc.No.43772/01-19 dated 22.06.2003 in suspending the C Form License of the Petitioners Theatre viz., Ramesh Theatre, Palani District from 15.07.2003 to 19.07.2003 is a valid one and the same does not suffer from material irregularity or with patent illegality and in any event, on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, in an integral fashion, it cannot be said to be an excessive or arbitrary one but the same is minimal and prudent one to turn a new leaf in the near future, in the considered opinion of this Court. Viewed in that perspective, the impugned order of the Respondent which is not to be interfered with and resultantly, the writ petition fails. 29. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.