Judgment :- 1. It is a strange case filed by the Theatre owner at Coimbatore. The allegation against the theatre owner was that when he was exhibiting the film "AYAN", while issuing the advance ticket, he has collected Rs.70/- but when the ticket owning public came to the theatre, he was given only official receipt of Rs.40/- and thus on scrutiny, the excess amount collected by the theatre owner was found by the authorities. Therefore, the District Collector by an order dated 22.8.2009 after holding the petitioner guilty of collecting excess amount and defrauding the State Revenue suspended the "C" Form licence for a period of 7 days. As per the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, the petitioner has got a right of appeal. Therefore, he filed an appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Cinema and Irrigation), Land Administration Department. The appellate authority, namely the 2nd respondent by his order dated 9.2.2011 dismissed the appeal. As against the same, revision was filed. The revisional authority, namely the State Government while confirming the misconduct alleged against the theatre owner, reduced the penalty from 7 days to 3 days. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for further mercy of this Court. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that no proper opportunity was given by the District Collector and the order of the 1st respondent State Government is one sided. It is also stated that due to the development of VCR, VCP and TV Net works, the running of Cinema Theatre is a bad business proposition and heavy loss is incurred to the Cinema Theatre owners and no sympathy was shown to him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.6399 of 2007 dated 1.3.2007, wherein a similar indulgence has been shown by a learned Judge of this Court. 4. It must be noted that once statutory power is exercised by the District Collector and when the District Collector found the petitioner guilty and imposed the penalty of 7 days suspension of licence, the same can be questioned only if the order is either perverse or not supported by statutory power exercised by the Collector. The Act itself provides for hierarchy of remedies by way of appeal and revision and the revision is by the highest authority of the State Government. The Act itself provides for hierarchy of remedies by way of appeal and revision and the revision is by the highest authority of the State Government. When the petitioner was let off with the penalty of 7 days of suspension of licence by the District Collector and thereafter the State Government decided to modify the penalty into one of 3 days of suspension of licence, this Court exercising under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the order passed by the State Government. The proportionality of the penalty is entirely an issue, which has to be decided only by the statutory authority. The Court cannot go into the issue unless the penalty is so shocking or disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by a person. 5. In the present case, it cannot be said that there is no material at the hands of the Collector. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have confirmed the findings rendered by the District Collector. Only on the quantum of penalty, the State Government showed some indulgence. No further indulgence can be shown by this Court. In such matters, as the indiscipline caused by the Theatre owners is found proved, they cannot be let off only on the ground that the industry was doing badly due to competitive business. If the petitioner feels that they cannot run the theatre within the four corners of the laws prescribed, they are not expected to run the theatre and cause loss to the State. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.