1983 (4) TMI 301 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Rule 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970.
2. Infringement of fundamental right to carry on trade or business.
3. Excessive delegation of legislative power.
4. Reasonableness of the restriction imposed by Rule 12(3).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of Rule 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970:
The petitioners challenged the vires of Rule 12(3) on the grounds that it lacked statutory basis, involved excessive delegation, and imposed unreasonable constraints on their fundamental right to carry on trade or business. The Court examined whether the rule-making power under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955, extended to the fixation of cinema ticket prices. It was concluded that the term "regulation" in the Act is broad and comprehensive, encompassing the power to fix maximum rates of admission to different classes in cinema theatres. The Court found that the rule was within the legislative intent and incidental to the main purpose of the Act, thus holding that Rule 12(3) was not ultra vires.

2. Infringement of Fundamental Right to Carry on Trade or Business:
The petitioners argued that Rule 12(3) infringed upon their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged that while the petitioners have a right to carry on trade or business, this right is not absolute and can be regulated in the public interest. The regulation of cinema ticket prices was deemed necessary to ensure the public's access to affordable entertainment, prevent arbitrary pricing, and avoid monopolistic practices. The Court held that the restriction imposed by Rule 12(3) was reasonable and in the interest of the general public, and thus did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.

3. Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power:
The petitioners contended that the delegation of power to the State Government to fix cinema ticket prices was excessive and unconstitutional. The Court examined the principles of delegated legislation and found that the Legislature can delegate the power to determine details necessary for implementing the Act's broad principles. The Act provided sufficient guidance for the rule-making authority, and the power to fix ticket prices was considered incidental to the regulation of cinema exhibitions. The Court concluded that the delegation of power was valid and not excessive.

4. Reasonableness of the Restriction Imposed by Rule 12(3):
The petitioners argued that the restriction imposed by Rule 12(3) was unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court considered the purpose of the regulation, the nature of the business, and the public interest involved. It was noted that cinema exhibitions have become a significant part of public life, providing entertainment and education. The regulation of ticket prices was necessary to ensure that the public could access cinemas at reasonable rates and to prevent exploitation by cinema owners. The Court found that the restriction was reasonable, not arbitrary, and served the public interest. The rule was held to be a valid exercise of regulatory power.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that Rule 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970, was valid, constitutional, and did not infringe upon the petitioners' fundamental rights. The regulation was found to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and the delegation of power to the State Government was upheld as valid. The Court also rejected the petitioners' oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.