Das Gupta, C.J. - (1.) The orders against which this appeal is directed were made by Sinha J., on an application by the Manager of the Purna Theatre and the executor to the estate of Manomoy Banerjee, who is carrying on business under the name of Purna Theatre. As people who frequent cinema houses are aware, advertisements are displayed on the screen during the usual hours of display of pictures. According to the present appellants, the owners of the theatre are bound in law to take out licenses in respect of the display of such advertisements on payment of money in accordance with the rules made by the Corporation under Section 229 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The owners of the Purna Theatre having refused to take out such licenses, the Deputy License Officer of the Corporation wrote to the Manager on 5-1-1956 stating that action would have to be taken within the specified date for enforcement of law in respect of this. On the 2nd of February 1958 the License Inspector issued a notice to the Manager, Purna Theatre, stating that as he had been displaying advertisements on slides inside the cinema house, he was directed to take out a license on payment of a fee of Rs. 630/- and that this must be obtained within a fortnight. On 21-2-1956 the Deputy License Officer issued a notice to the Manager stating that if he failed to take out the license within a week from that date, prosecution would be filed against him under Section 541 (1) (d) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The owners of the Purna Theatre still persisted in saying that they were not bound to take out a license as directed and ultimately they made the present application to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for appropriate Writs restraining Corporation and its licensing authorities from taking any step in respect of the demands or notices mentioned above and quashing the demands and the notices. A Rule was issued on the present appellants to show cause why the appropriate Writ should not be issued for giving the applicants the reliefs asked for. At the hearing of the rule four points were urged on behalf of the applicants. The first was that the cinema house was not a public place within the meaning of Section 229. 'Secondly it was urged that the law as it appears in Section 229 was invalid as it delegated legislative function to the Corporation beyond the limits of permissible delegation. Thirdly it was stated that Section 229 is ultra vires the Constitution in violation of the principle of equal protection of rights as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. And lastly it was urged that Section 229 permits the levy of a license tee only but in this case as there was no quid pro quo for the payments sought to be levied the fee was not license fee and so the legislation was invalid.
(2.) As regards the last point it was conceded before the learned Judge and it has been conceded before us that there is no quid pro quo and though the section uses the word 'license fee' what is sought to be levied is not a license fee but a tax. The learned Judge was however of opinion that the fact that it was a tax though the word 'license fee' was used, would not make the legislation invalid. The learned Judge was also of opinion that the cinema house' was a public place within the meaining of Section 229 of the Act. He held however that the law as bid down in Section 229, was invalid as being beyond the permissible limits of delegation and further it was ultra vires the Constitution being in violation of the principle of equal protection of rights guaranteed by the Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) Accordingly he made the rule absolute and ordered the issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the present appellants "to forbear from demanding or refusing from the petitioners any license fees under Section 229 of the Act read with the rules, in respect of advertisement displayed on cinema screens." As already indicated, it is against this order that the appeal has been preferred.;