AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. Since a number of matters are being filed complaining about the refusal to grant stay and the consequent prejudice caused to the petitioner. I am passing a final order in this writ Petition after hearing, the Government Advocate.
A few facts may be stated so that the ratio of this judgment can be appreciated by the Authorities. The petitioner is a cinema theatre owner. By proceedings dated 20-1-1993 the "C" form Licence was suspended for a period of thirty days on the ground that the petitioner sold the tickets for a higher price than the permitted rates. The petitioner has some explanation to offer in respect of the said allegation. Whatever that may be, he filed an appeal to the Joint Commissioner (second respondent) raising several contentions. Pending disposal of the appeal, there was a stay of the order of suspension. However the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 18-6-1993 and the stay was vacated. Thereupon the petitioner filed a revision petition on 14-7-1993 and also sought for stay of the order of suspension of the "C" form licence. But no orders have been passed on the stay application by the Revisional Authority from 14-7-1993 onwards, but, on the other hand the Collector is seeking to enforce the order of suspension by issuing a notice on 7-7-1993, which states that order of suspension will be given effect to from 10-8-1993 to 24-8-1993. I remember to have once before pointed out that in such statutory revisions relating to orders of suspension, unless the Revisional Authority grants stay, the revision itself will become infructuous. There is certainly no point in having the revision pending and allowing the order of suspension to be given effect to. In such matters, the Revisional Authority should adopt some procedure so that either a stay is granted or the Licensing Authority is directed not to enforce the order of suspension, pending the revision petition. It is for the Revisional Authority to adopt a proper formula and avoid such unnecessary writ petitions. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing stay pending disposal of the revision petition filed on 14-7-1993 and pending with the first respondent. In other words, the order of suspension shall not be given effect to until the revision is disposed of one way or the other. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.