R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned standing counsel. As no factual controversy is involved, this petition is being disposed of without counties affidavit with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) A notice dated May 5, 1995 calling upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why action be not taken against them Under Section 12 and Sub -section (1) of Section 15 of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). By the same order, an interim order suspending their license during the pendency of the enquiry has also been passed. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition. So far as the grievance of the Petitioners against show cause notice is concerned, this Court should not under Article 226 of the Constitution, interfere with it. The Petitioner should show cause before the concerned authority which will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(3.) AS regards that part of the order whereby an interim order suspending the license has been passed, there is no dispute that the authority has the power to pass such an order under the proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. The said Sub -section (2) and its proviso is as under: (2) No order to revoke or suspend any permission or license shall be made Under Sub -section (1) without giving the holder of the license or permission a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that where the District Magistrate or the Commissioner is of the opinion that the object of the action proposed to be taken would be defeated by the delay, he may, while or after communicating to the holder of the license or permission the grounds on which the action is proposed, pass an interim order suspending the permission or license In the meantime.;