K S GOPALA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the question of law and fact arising axe common to all of them. They are directed against orders made by the District Magistrate, Bangalore District, in MAG(2) 252, 232 and 223 of 71-72 and MAG(2) 32/72-73. By those orders the applications of the petitioners for the grant of ' No objection certificates' (NOC for short) enabling the running of touring cinemas in Bangalore District, had all been rejected on the basis of Rule 107 of the Rules framed under the Mysore Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964. The question of law arising in all these petitions is whether Rule 107 of the Mysore Cinemas (Regulation) Rules of 1971, (hereinafter referred to as Cinema Rules), is constitutionally valid in the context of Arts. 14 & 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The relevant Rule reads thus :

(2.) There are no special provisions for the licensing of touring cinemas in Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964. In regard to their licensing, provision has been made in Chap. XI of the Cinema Rules. Rule 88 thereof has made provision for the application of certain rules governing the grant of NOC's in case of permanent cinemas, to cases of tqurist cinemas also. It is relevant to set qut Rule 27 (2) governing permanent cinemas also for the purpose of reference and comparison in the context of a contention that a similar provision could have been made in the case of touring cinemas also. This Rule has not been specified in Rule 88, making it applicable to the latter class of cinemas. The said Rule reads thus :

(3.) The petitioners' applications to run touring cinemas have all been rejected almost exclusively on the ground that the camp sites involved therein were all situated at places lying in an area within a radius of three miles from the site on which a permanent cinema theatre and a touring cinema are already located., and therefore, clearly barred under Rule 107 of the Cinema Rules, which forbids the grant of more than one 'NOC' in such circumstances. Aggrieved by these orders of rejection, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the constitutionally of the said Rule as aforesaid.