Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1959 (10) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Orissa Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1954. 2. Validity of the appellate order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Orissa Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1954: The petitioner challenged the validity of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Orissa Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1954, arguing that it conferred "unrestricted and arbitrary power" on the District Magistrate to grant or refuse licenses for exhibiting cinema films, thus offending the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the absence of rules guiding the discretion of the District Magistrate made the provision unconstitutional. The court examined the constitutionality of statutes conferring discretionary power on authorities, referencing several Supreme Court decisions. It was noted that the fundamental right to carry on any business or trade can be abridged only by "reasonable restrictions" as permitted by Clause (6) of Article 19. The court emphasized that the test of reasonableness should consider the nature of the right, the purpose of the restrictions, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied, and prevailing conditions, among other factors. The court cited various cases, such as the Madhya Pradesh Bidi case and the State of Madras v. V.G. Rao, to illustrate the application of these principles. It was highlighted that while a statute conferring wide discretion on an authority is not unconstitutional per se, it becomes problematic when no policy or principle is laid down to guide the discretion, resulting in arbitrary or excessive powers. The court concluded that the Orissa Act was intended to regulate the exhibition of films and did not include the power to prohibit. The discretion to grant or refuse licenses was controlled by the preamble and the rules made under the Act, which provided for the safety and convenience of persons attending the cinema. The absence of specific rules regarding the principles to be followed in making a selection from rival applicants did not invalidate the statute. The court held that Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act was not unconstitutional, as the authority chosen for granting licenses was the District Magistrate, and there was a provision for appeal to a superior authority. 2. Validity of the appellate order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was bad in law as it considered extraneous matters irrelevant to the eligibility for license renewal. The District Magistrate had rejected the renewal of the petitioner's temporary license, citing the grant of a permanent license to another party and the unsuitability of the petitioner's location. The court noted that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner had not completely prohibited the petitioner from exhibiting films but had suggested finding another suitable location. The opinion of local officers regarding the suitability of a location was deemed decisive, especially when based on local inspection. The court acknowledged that the location of a cinema house could cause nuisance and pose fire risks, and the suitability of a location could change over time as the town grew. The court dismissed the argument of unfair discrimination, stating that the petitioner and the other party were not similarly placed, as the latter had a permanent license for a permanent building, while the petitioner had a temporary license for a structure with a temporary roof. The court also noted that the petitioner had not pressed for a permanent license after fulfilling the necessary conditions. The court found no unconstitutionality in the Orissa Act or the appellate order and dismissed the petition with costs. Conclusion: The petition challenging the constitutionality of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Orissa Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1954, and the validity of the appellate order was dismissed. The court held that the Act and the appellate order were constitutional and that the discretion conferred on the licensing authority was reasonable and controlled by the preamble and rules under the Act. The petitioner's contentions were rejected, and the court assessed a hearing fee of Rs. 200 to be apportioned equally between the opposite parties.
|