MINERVA TALKIES BANGALORE KALPANA TALKIES SAGAR TALKIES B C PARTHASARATHI GOPAL FILMS SHRI RAJARAJESHWARI TALKIES SHRI ROYAL PICTURE PALACE NAAZ THEATRES JAYARAJ PARTNER THE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals and writ petitions involve two questions of law; (i) whether Rule 41 A of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the State Government under Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made "for purposes of the Act", and (ii) whether Rule 41A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

(2.) The appellants/petitioners hold licences for exhibiting cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act and the Rules in form F prescribed by the Rules. The Rules and conditions contained in the Licence (Form F) do not prescribe any restriction on the number of shows of films which a licensee can exhibit in his theatre. Condition No. 11 of the licence, however, provides that:

(3.) In pursuance of Rule 41A the appellants were directed to exhibit cinematograph films for four shows only in a day. The appellants challenged validity of the aforesaid rule placing restriction on their right to exhibit cinematograph films before the High Court of Karnataka by means of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants contended before the High Court that the restriction imposed by Rule 41A on the licensees requiring them to exhibit more than four shows in a day was belond the rule making power, as the rule did not carry out the purposes of the Act. It was further contended that the Rule placed unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right to carry on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films. The respondent State submitted before the High Court that the State Government realised that on account of exhibition of five shows in a day, in a cinema theatre, it was not possible for the licensees to keep the theatres hygienically clean and reports were received that for want of time the licensees were not exhibiting approved films and slides required under the provisions of the Act. The State Government found that exhibition of five shows in a day was not conducive to the health of the cine-goers and therefore it framed Rule 41A limiting the shows. It was contended that the Rule was intended for the regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films in the licensed premises, and was within the scope and purposes of the Act. It was further pleaded before the High Court that the impugned Rule 41 A was not violative of Article 19 of the Constitution as it placed a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public as contemplated by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.