STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEEPAK THEATRE DHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 and the rules framed there under authorise the Licensing Authority to make classes of Cinemas hall Seats and to prescribe the rates therefor is the meaningful and indeed solitary question which falls for determination in this set of fourteen connected appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The learned single Judge had disposed of all the fourteen writ petition by a common judgment which is under appeal. Counsel are equally agreed that this judgment will govern all the Letter Patent Appeals.

(3.) Since the question of law and fact are indeed closely similar, if not identical, a reference to the facts in L. P. A. No. 913 arising from C. W. P. No. 6300 of 1976 amply suffices. The respondent was carrying on the business of exhibition of cinema films in Deepak Theatre, Dhuri. It had been duly granted a licence by the District Magistrate, Sangrur, under Section 5 of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952(hereinafter called the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. The Licensing Authority by its order dated the 26th of February, 1975, had made four classification of seats, namely Box ; I st class ; II nd Class/Ladies and III class at the prescribed rate of Rs. 2,70; Rs. 1.75 Rs. 1.30 and Rs. O. 80 p. respectively that order was challenged on behalf of the respondent in C. W. No. 1752 of 1971 and this high court after issuing notice to the respondent stayed the operation of this order. Apparently he proprietors of the Cinema Hall thereafter made their own classification of seats and fixed he rates therefor. However, subsequently the District Magistrate, Sangrur, who is the Licensing Authority passed a fresh order dated the 26th of August, 1976, abolishing the earlier classification and fixing three classes of Cinema seats at under :- Balcony Rs. 3.50p. 1st class Rs. 2.50 p. 2nd Class Rs. 2.00 p. The aforesaid rates were apparently lower than those fixed by the cinema owners themselves and a representation was made on their behalf to the Licensing Authority which, however, was rejected. The respondents then presented the writ petition and by the judgment under appeal all the writ petition preferred earlier in 1971 and later in 1976 stand allowed.