' Brief facts are; the petitioner had taken Prince Cinema, Hafizabad, on lease and is running the same. On 22-10-1997 a case under section 18 of Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that he was exhibiting obscene picture. Thereafter, on 3-11- 1997 the District Magistrate passed the impugned order, in exercise of powers under Rule 109 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984, suspending the licence of the Cinema and sealing the building thereof. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The grievance voiced in this writ petition is that despite the fact that law requires prior hearing before passing of an order under Rule 109 (ibid) the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of hearing and he has been condemned unheard. Rule 109(1) reads as under: "109. Suspension for Cancellation of licence.--(1) The District Magistrate may, at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, revoke or suspend a licence granted by licensing authority for any breach of these rules or the conditions of the licence: ' Provided that a hearing is afforded to the Cinema management before passing such order: .
' Provided further that the licensee may within thirty days of the communication of such decision to him, appeal against it to the Commissioner of the Division whose decision shall be final."
3. Learned Law Officer could not controvert the assertion of the petitioner I about lack of opportunity of hearing to him prior to the passing of the impugned order. The failure on the part of the District Magistrate to comply with the mandatory requirement of Rule, 109 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984 has vitiated the order, impugned herein, and it is accordingly declared to be without lawful authority. It will be open to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing.