JUDGMENT
D.S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Shri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel representing the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly agree and pray that this petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, Accordingly, the Court
proceeds to do so.
3. By means of the impugned order dated 13th November, 1997, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, an enquiry under Section 15 of the U. P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, hereinafter called the Act. has been initiated against the petitioner, and tn exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the licence of the petitioner for exhibiting cinematograph films has been suspended during pendency of the enquiry.
4. Under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, the licence of a licensee for exhibiting cinematograph films can be revoked or suspended by way of punishment for a period not exceeding three months, after giving to the licensee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act authorises the lecencing authority to suspend the licence during the pendency of the proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, on existence of specified grounds.
5. The licence of the petitioner was suspended on 13th November, 1997 by way of Interim measure. The licence of the petitioner can be suspended by way of punishment under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act for a period of not more than three months. In the opinion of the Court, period of interim suspension cannot exceed the period of ultimate suspension under Section 15 (1) of the Act. Thus, the licence of the petitioner cannot be kept suspended beyond a period of three months from the date of passing of the order of suspension. i.e., 13th November. 1997. Admittedly, the period of three months is going to expire on 12th February, 1998.
6. Shri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel representing the respondents concedes that the licence of the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension beyond 13th February. 1998. Therefore. Shri Malviya submits that it would be futile exercise to investigate upon the legality of the impugned order, and the petitioner may be disposed of finally with the clarification that the suspension of the licence of the petitioner shall not operate beyond 12th February, 1998.
7. In the backdrop of what has been said above, the petition is disposed of finally subject to the observations made above and clarification that suspension of the licence of the petitioner shall not be operative beyond 12th February. 1998. But, it is made clear that this order shall not prevent the respondents from continuing with the enquiry initiated against the petitioner under Section 15 (1) of the Act.