D K V PRASADA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions consisting of individual and juristic persons (Partnership Firms) and a lone lessee-licensees of cinema buildings (hereinafter called theatres) situation in West Godavari, Khammam, Nizambad and Mahboobnagar Districts are the petitioners. They invoked the constitutional remedy under Article 226 impugning "the virus of R. 12 (3)" of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Rules, (1970), hereinafter called "the impugned Rule", mounting three pronged attack viz., infringement of their fundamental right to carry on trade or business in exhibiting cinematographs, on the anvil of (1) smack of statutory base, (2) excessive delegation and (3) unreasonable constraint in the exercise and enjoyment of their aforesaid right. Whether the base thus created on their four pillars (writ petitions) stand erected on solid foundation or shifting sand, is the subject of broach hereinafter. The reliefs claimed thereon are : (a) for declaration that the conferment of the rule-making power under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Act (4 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" as ultra virus the Constitution; (b) to declare R. 12 (3) and the conditions if any imposed in Form B Licence pursuant to the said rule fixing the prices of cinema tickets as illegal, void and ultra virus the Constitution and the rule-making power; (c) and to issue a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise the rates of admission to their theatres.

(2.) The allegations made in support thereof are that the petitioners are either proprietors or lessee-licensees of the theatres at their respective places of business. They constructed the theatres at a huge cost. They provided all amenities as per law. Pursuant to the licences granted under the provisions of the Act and the Rules in the prescribed B Form to exhibit cinematographs, they are doing their business. As owners thereof and as incident to their business avocation, they have got a right to fix the rates of admission to permit the persons to enter into different classes to witness the cinematographs. But the respondents have impeded their free right to fix the rates of admission at their choice. The Act was legislated with the sole object to regulate only to ensure safety to the cine-going public in their theatres as enjoined under Section 6 and health and sanitation, as incidental to regulation. Sections 3 and 5 of the Act are intended to operate only in that field. Section 11 delegates power to the State Government to make rules regulating to work out successfully in implementation of the aforesaid purpose. Rules were initially made to meet those purposes. But the price control of cinema tickets is not within the purview of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the fixation of maximum rates of admission to different classes cannot be said to carry out any of the purposes of the Act. There is no specific provisions under the Act empowering the State Government or the Licensing Authority to fix the rates of admission. So, the rule-making power under Section 11 cannot travel beyond the above purposes. They are incurring huge expenditure to provide the facilities and amenities prescribed, apart from the payment of minimum wages to workmen while meeting the mounting cost of exhibiting films. But in view of the unlawful interference by the licensing authority, viz., the second respondent in these writ petitions in fixing the rates of admission, the petitioners are put to great financial loss. The petitioners made repeated representations bringing to the notice of the licensing authorities of the loss thus being incurred and requested to revise the rates of admission. Without any justification, they have been delaying revision of the rates of admission, thereby they are made to incur huge financial loss. Gradually the business be closed and be driven out from trade or business.

(3.) The power to fix rates of admission is a legislative act. Incases where the Parliament intended to operate detrimental to the fundamental right of a citizen in respect of fixing the rates of prices, vis--vis the right to trade or to carry on business, specific enactments like the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 and the Defence of India Act and various Control Orders issued in pursuance of the delegation thereunder, have been brought on statute book inhibiting the free right of a citizen to fix the prices of essential commodities. If the Legislature intended to invade into this right of fixation of rates of admission, being a legislative act, the Legislature would have specifically provided for such a power under the Act itself. But the Act does not envisage any such power. A reading of the preamble, all the provisions of the Act and Rules, does not indicate any such power being given to the Legislature. The Legislature intended its delegate to make rules only to operate in the field adumbrated and adverted to earlier. Therefore, exercise of power by the delegated authority, viz., the State Government in making Rule 12 (3) lacks legislative competency and therefore unconstitutional. Even admitting that there inheres such power. It is not incidental to the main purpose and is of excessive delegation. There are no guidelines provided under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Therefore it is arbitrary leading to capricious exercise of power. Even otherwise, it is an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of their fundamental right enshrined under Article 19 (1) (g). It is also arbitrary, offending Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners in all the four writ petitions have reiterated these contentions. Untrammeled by question of fact, questions of law arise for decision in all these writ petitions, we have therefore extracted the averments made in W. P. No. 480 of 1980 being first to approach.