S.K.JHA,J. - (1.)IN this writ application two rules nisi have been issued, one for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure -5 to the writ application and another for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, namely, the State of Bihar, the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi and the Cinema Magistrate, Ranchi not to enforce the direction or restriction imposed under the impugned order Annexure -5. The petitioner M/s. Vishnu Talkies is a partnership firm carrying its business of exhibiting cinematographic films in the town of Ranchi under a licence duly granted to it by the licensing authority, namely, the District Magistrate, who in the present case is the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi, Respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 5 (2) of the Bihar Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1954 (Bihar Act XV of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.)SHORTLY stated, the facts giving rise to this application are these. The petitioner firm has been carrying on business of exhibiting films in the town of Ranchi for the last 20 years end is holding a licence which is annually renewed on and with effect from the 1st of April every year, as we have been informed at the Bar. Before the enactment of the Bihar Act in question the cinema proprietors had to take out licences for exhibiting of films under the Cinematographs Act, 1918 (Central Act II of 1918) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act 1918'). The Central Act of 1918 was replaced by a later Central Act known as the Cinematographs Act 1952 (Act XXVII of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act 1952) and the 1918 Act was repealed to the extent that such a repeal shall have effect only in so far as the 1918 Act related to the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition. Subsequently, however, the State Acts were enacted in different States in the chain of which the Bihar Act in question also came to be inserted in the Statute Book. As to the legislative history of the Bihar Act in question, I shall advert to it at some length at its proper place. The Bihar Act received the assent of the Governor of Bihar on the 17th of March, 1954 and the licensing authority under Section 4 of the Act was prescribed to be the District Magistrate. Under Section 5 (2) of the Act it was laid down that subject to certain provisions of the section and to the control of the State Government to which I shall refer in some detail in due course, the licensing authority may grant licences under this Act to the exhibitors. It was in pursuance of this power vested in the District Magistrate that for the year ending the 31st of March, 1974 the petitioner's licence was renewed and one of the conditions or restrictions to which the licence issued to the petitioner was subjected and with which alone we are concerned in the present case was that contained in condition 8 (b) of the licence. A true copy of the licence issued to the petitioner as renewed for the year 1973 -74 has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ application, condition 8 (b) of which is reproduced below : "8 (b) Number of show to be held daily in the cinema will be four i.e. noon, 3 p. m., 6 p. m. and 9 p. m. no other show will be held in any circumstances without obtaining prior permission of the licensing authority. The time of the daily show should be changed only after obtaining the permission of the licensing authority."
According to the case of the petitioner, the licensing authority on appreciating the increasing demand of the cinema going public permitted the petitioner to exhibit four film shows every day, as would be apparent from condition No. 8 (b) of the licence granted to the petitioner, as quoted above. On the 27th of April, 1973 the petitioner's firm was served with an order passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi directing that with immediate effect no show should be held before 3 p.m. and on holidays permission could be granted for holding morning shows provided separate applications were filed for the purpose. A true copy of the said letter dated the 27th of April, 1973, has been marked Annexure -2 to the application. It seems the directions contained in Annexure -2 were also issued to cinema exhibitors of other towns including those of Patna and one of such film exhibitors had filed a writ application being C. W. J. C. No. 587 of 1973 challenging the validity of such a direction which was quashed by this Court by an order dated the 17th of August, 1973. I may mention here that so far as C. W. J. C. No. 587 of 1973 is concerned, I was a party to the Judgment of the Bench dated the 17th of August, 1973 by which the aforesaid impugned order was quashed solely on the ground that it was the licensing authority who had the power to impose restrictions or to put conditions and the State Government which was the appellate authority as also the revisional authority under the Bihar Act in question (could) not take upon itself the statutory powers and duties vested in or put upon the original licensing authority, namely, the District Magistrate; and as the impugned order in that case had been issued as per directions of the State Government without the licensing authority applying its own mind, it was held to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, quashed. Be that as it may, after that judgment, on the 27th of September, 1973, a copy of an order dated the 26 -9 -1973, passed by the licensing authority was communicated to the petitioner to the following effect: (the translation from Hindi to English has been rendered by me). Complaints had come to the notice of the licensing authority that on the days when schools, colleges or other educational institutions were open many students instead of going to the educational institutions went to attend the cinema shows held before 3 P. M. causing great obstruction to the educational pursuits of the students. Having considered the matter from all aspects, it had been decided that on the days when the schools, colleges and/or other educational institutions remained open, no such cinema shows should be exhibited before 3 p. m. and, therefore, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 the permission which had been accorded to the licensees to exhibit cinema shows before 3 P.M. was revoked and it was further ordered that on such days as the schools, colleges and other educational institutions were open, no cinema shows before 3 p.m. should be exhibited ; and this restriction on the licence as a part of the conditions of the licence should be treated to have come into force with immediate effect". It is this order as contained in Annexure 5 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application.

(3.)A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and the Cinema Magistrate of Ranchi wherein in Paragraph 4 it has been stated that the statements made in the writ application to the effect that the permission to exhibit four film shows daily was given on appreciating an increasing demand of the cinema going public of Ranchi town was not admitted. Rather, the permission for four shows daily was granted in a routine manner just as a usual course. It has further been asserted that during the recent past a growing tendency had been noticed amongst the students to run away from educational institutions to the cinema houses during the Noon -shows which had in its turn serious adverse effect on the interests of the general public, and it was necessary in the interests of the general public to cut a restriction on exhibition of cinematograph films in cinema houses before 3 P. M. on the days on which educational institutions remained open. In paragraph 7 of the counter -affidavit it has further been asserted that comparatively the number of students for whom classes were held in the morning and noon was much higher than those for whom classes were held in the evening. It has further been submitted that the impugned order does not put any unreasonable restriction on the petitioner, or for that matter, any cinema exhibitor's right to carry on business or trade. Rather, the restriction, was reasonable being impelled in the interest of the general public.