ORDER
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order contained in memo No. 1434, dated 8-4-97 (Annexure 10), whereby the Collector of Nalanda, Biharsharif, has rejected the cause shown by the petitioner, and has cancelled his licence under the Dinar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules thereunder.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the holder of a licence under Section 3 of the Act to exhibit cinematograph films for the general public in the Naaz cinema hall at Biharsharif. He was served with a show cause notice dated 4-2-97 (Annexure 3), wherein the following three allegations were levelled against him
(i) Non adults were admitted to shows meant for adults only.
(ii) Obscene posters relating to the film were put up by way of advertisement.
(iii) The lavatory etc, were in unhygienic condition.
2.1. By the same order dated 4-2-97, the petitioner’s licence was suspended with immediate effect and he was prohibited from holding cinema shows. The petitioner had shown cause on 7-3-97 (Annexure 4), whereby he denied the allegations.
3. The licensing authority had earlier caused a surprise inspection of the premises in question on 20-3-97 (Annexure G), which states as follows :–
(a) The surprise inspection was done on 8-2-97, the date on which the petitioner had allegedly admitted non adults to the cinema show for adults in the absence of the owner or the manager of the Naaz cinema hall.
(b) 15-20% of the viewers were non-adults. The report, therefore, recommended that the petitioner should be directed not to repeat it in future.
(c) The urinal had been improved.
Taking an over-all view of the situation, the inspection report recommended to the licensing authority that the order of suspension may be lifted and he may be allowed to resume the shows with a warning. In the meanwhile the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court against that part of the aforesaid order dated 4-2-97 (Annexure 3), whereby the suspension order was imposed, which was registered as CWJC No. 2746 of 1997. The same was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 31-3-97, with the observation that in a case of this nature, instead of cancelling or suspending the licence, the authorities must see to it that the rules are enforced. The respondent authorities were directed to hold an inspection forthwith with a view to revoke the order of suspension. The authorities had already held the inspection, as stated above, on 20-3-97 (Annexure 6), and in view of that report, the licensing authority passed orders on 4-4-97 lifting the suspension order.
4. Thereafter the licensing authority considered the cause shown by the petitioner in the main matter, found the same to “be unsatisfactory, and passed the impugned order dated 8-4-97 (Annexure 10), whereby it has imposed the following punishments on the petitioner :–
(i) The first charge has been found to be proved and, therefore, the SDO has been directed to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(ii) So far the second charge is concerned, the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
(iii) In so far as the third charge is concerned, lavatory is now in proper condition and the defects have been removed.
5. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that in so far as the first charge is concerned, the aforesaid inspection report dated 20-3-97 itself states that the surprise inspection was done in absence of the owner or the manager of the cinema hall. The charge also does not indicate reasonable details about the dereliction, for example, how many non-adults were found in the hall, etc. In that view of the matter, I hold that the first charge fails on the ground of holding inspection behind the back of the owner or his representative, and also on the ground of vagueness.
6. In so far as the second allegation is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 26 of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1974, does not empower the licensing authority to impose fine for violation of Rule 26. The same is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :–
“26. Display of posters.– No obscene, immodest or objectionable poster, placard, hoarding or pictorial publicity material shall be displayed at the show windows or lobbies of Cinema house or at any other place within the licensed premises.”
He submits that the provision to impose a fine ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000 was inserted by Act XV of 1954 with effect from 13-1-82, had provided to the effect that “the owner of the cinema who acts against the provisions of these rules shall be fined by the Licensing Authority which shall range from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-” The same was repealed with effect from 12-10-1982. In other words, the provision for fine was in force from 13-1-82 to 12-10-82. In that view of the matter, learned counsel is right in his submission that in the absence of any provision empowering the Licensing Authority to impose fine on the date of the alleged occurrence, the impugned order inflicting fine on the petitioner for display of obscene, immodest or objectionable posters is bad in law, and is fit to be set aside.
7. The Licensing Authority has by the impugned order dropped the third charge.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Govt. Circular dt. 26-2-82 (Annexure 2), which provides the guidelines in such circumstances, calling upon the Licensing Authorities in the State to desist from cancelling or suspending the licence for ordinary reasons. The Circular says that the entire emphasis should be on corrective measures and on enforcing the rules, and the cinema owners should be given Warning and opportunity not to repeat the acts of omission and commission, rather than suspension or closure of the cinema halls. It appears to me that the Licensing Authority in this case clearly overlooked the guidelines provided by the State Govt. vide Annexure 2, resulting in an unduly, hasty and drastic action.
9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order contained in memo No. 1434, dated 8-4-97 (Annexure 10), is hereby set aside. Let it be recorded that operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court by order dated 30-4-97.