JUDGMENT

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:—On 15-7-1974 the appellant applied for a licence under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act 1888 for conducting games of skill and dances and other quality performances in a village adjoining the district headquarters town of Nellore, with its 12 cinema theatres, in Andhra Pradesh. That Act has been extended to this Panchayat. On 25-9-1974 the licence was refused by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Its grant had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police as also two associations called Mitramandali and the Town Yuvajanasangham. But on appeal to the Village Panchayat as provided in Section 129 of the Panchayats Act a licence was granted on 1st October, 1974. The Mitramandli made a representation to the Chief Minister and the District Panchayat Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Police, the Tehsildar, and the Revenue Divisional Officer 144 also reported against the grant of licence. On 21st January 1975 the Additional District Magistrate issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the licence issued to him should not be cancelled. The appellant had in the meanwhile put up semi-permanent structure as required under the terms of the licence which even according to the Executive Engineer, Zila Parishad, Nellore should have cost him Rs. 27,000/-. He commenced his business on 22nd January 1975 and the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate reached him on the 25th. He sent a reply on the 27th and on the 28th the licence was cancelled. The appellant s writ petition questioning the cancellation was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, so was an appeal against that dismissal by a Division Bench. This appeal has been filed in pursuance of special leave granted by this Court.

2. In his reply to the show cause notice the appellant had asked for copies of the various documents on the basis of which the show cause notice had been issued and stated that in their absence he was not in a position to submit a detailed explanation in reply and he was, however, offering a tentative explanation promising a fuller and detailed explanation after the receipt of the copies. In particular in respect of a reference to a murder in the show cause notice he stated that it took place in the premises of another amusement park long after it was closed for want of licence. The District Magistrate considered that the explanation offered was a routine one and was not convincing.

3. Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act enables the District Magistrate to call for and examine the record of any proceeding taken under the Act, to call for any report in connection therewith, to make or cause to be made any further enquiry and to pass any order which the authority holding the proceeding might have passed. Under Section 9 any authority granting a license may for reasons recorded in writing, revoke or suspend the same when he has reason to believe:

(a) that the license has been fraudulently obtained;

(b) that the enclosed place or building has been used for other purposes of public resort or entertainment than that for which the license was granted: and

(c) that the place or building can no longer be safely used for the purpose for which the license was granted.

Undoubtedly none of the reasons applied in this case. Under Section 7 if the authority is satisfied

(a) that the enclosed place or building may safely be used for the purpose of public resort or entertainment proposed,

(b) that no objection, arising from its situation, ownership, or the purpose proposed, exists,

he shall grant to the applicant a written license. The only ground in this section applicable to the present case would be the purpose proposed .

4. The argument before us was that the power of the District Magistrate to revoke the licence under Sec, 12 can be for only any of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 9. The power under Sec. 12 i