J.K Tandon, J. - (1.) AS an identical question will determine the fate of these petitions they have been heard together. This order will, therefore, govern all the lour petitions.
(2.) THERE are two cinema houses situate at Sitapur styled as Lakshmi Talkies arid Rampa Talkies. Babu Ram Gupta Petitioner in petitions Nos. 31 and 32 is lessee of this cinema house. V.K. Shukla who is the Petitioner in the other two petitions is the Manager thereof. A case was started against Babu Ram and some others in the year 1958 in respect of Lakshmi Talkies fir contravention of the provisions of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act. Similarly there was another case in respect of Rampa Talkies in which besides Babu Ram Gupta, V.K. Shukla and two others were prosecuted, This case ultimately resulted in the conviction of Babu Ram, V.K. Shukla and others who are not before the Court in the present proceedings but three of them happened to be Gate Keepers. The only other fact which need be mentioned about these prosecutions is that though convicted for contravention of the provisions of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act Babu Ram Gupta and V.K. Shukla were let off after admonition. This happened on 3 -2 -60. On 17.2.60, the District Magistrate of Sitapur put porting to act Under Section 9A of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 made an order cancelling with immediate effect the licences for the two cinema houses. This order was communicated to the Petitioners the following day vide Annexure I, part of the petition. The order communicated to the Petitioners which in brief is thus: You are hereby informed that your Cinematograph licence in respect of Lakshmi Talkies Rampa Talkies Sitapur, has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Sitapur vide his order dated February 17, 1960 with immediate effect. Henceforth you should not give any Ginematograph shows. Please note. The Respondents have filed a copy of the order which the District Magistrate had made on the 17th of February, 1960 and it would appear from it that he cancelled the licences in favour of the Petitioners on the ground of their conviction for contravention of the provisions of the Entertainment and Belting Tax Act, 1937, as held in the cases started against these persons. It is unnecessary to refer to further details given in this order except the fact which has not been disputed, indeed it has been admitted by the Respondents, that the District Magistrate made the order without giving the Petitioners any warning or notice to be heard. It was, therefore, passed ex -parte without giving these persons an opportunity.
(3.) THE present petitions are thus directed against the above order. The grounds urged are various but it will not be necessary to refer to all of them since these cases have been beard on the effect of making an ex parte order for cancellation against the Petitioners. The Petitioners contend that the District Magistrate was bound while acting Under Section 9 -A to give an opportunity to them of being heard.;