1991 (12) TMI 262 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the word regulation would encompass the power to fix rates of admission and classification of the seats? Held that - The fixation of the prices of cinema tickets is integral to and a necessary adjunct of the larger power to regulate and licence the cinematograph trade. At best, such a power is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public to carry on such a business. That being so, we are unable to appreciate the contention that merely because the Act and the Rules thereunder cloths the licensing authority with power to fix prices which had been exercised by imposing condition No. 4, then the same would become necessarily unconstitutional. Thus Section 5, read with Rule 4 and condition 4A of the licence is a regulatory measure to fix the rates of admission and classification of the seating in the interest of the general public. It is within the power of the licensing authority. They do not impinge upon the fundamental right to trade, avocation or business of the licensee under the Act. It is a reasonable restriction imposed in the public interest. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ultra vires of licensing authority's power.
2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Validity of Rule 4 of the Punjab Cinemas Rules and condition 4A of the licence.
4. Power to classify seats and fix rates of admission.
5. Reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
6. Public interest and welfare considerations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ultra vires of licensing authority's power:
The appellant challenged the licensing authority's power to classify seats and fix rates of admission as ultra vires. The court examined Section 5 of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952, which empowers the licensing authority to grant licenses on such terms and conditions as it may determine, subject to government control. The court concluded that the power to regulate includes the power to classify seats and fix rates of admission, thus the licensing authority acted within its power.

2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that the regulation offends its right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. Citing precedents, the court held that regulating the number of shows and fixing rates of admission are reasonable restrictions necessary for public safety and welfare, and do not violate the fundamental right to carry on business.

3. Validity of Rule 4 of the Punjab Cinemas Rules and condition 4A of the licence:
The appellant questioned Rule 4 and condition 4A of the licence. Rule 4 stipulates that licenses are subject to conditions and restrictions set forth in the rules. Condition 4A specifically provides for the classification of seats and prices, requiring prior approval for any amendments. The court upheld these provisions, stating that they form an integral part of the regulatory framework and are essential for orderly conduct of the cinema business.

4. Power to classify seats and fix rates of admission:
The court analyzed whether the term "regulate" encompasses the power to classify seats and fix rates of admission. It held that the power to regulate includes prescribing and enforcing rules necessary for the proper conduct of business. The court affirmed that Section 5, Section 9, Rule 4, and condition 4A collectively empower the licensing authority to classify seats and fix admission rates, thus validating the authority's actions.

5. Reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution:
The court reiterated that reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) are permissible to ensure public safety and welfare. It referenced previous judgments, including Minerva Talkies, to support the view that regulating business activities, such as limiting the number of shows or fixing admission rates, are reasonable measures in public interest. The court found that the restrictions imposed by the licensing authority were reasonable and justified.

6. Public interest and welfare considerations:
The court emphasized the role of cinemas in promoting public welfare by providing affordable access to entertainment and education. It highlighted that the regulation of admission rates ensures fair pricing and prevents arbitrary or exploitative practices by cinema owners. The court underscored that the public interest necessitates regulating the cinema business to avoid monopolistic tendencies and ensure equitable access for all sections of society.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the licensing authority's power to classify seats and fix rates of admission is valid and within the scope of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952. The regulations do not violate the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) as they constitute reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the regulatory measures as necessary for public welfare.