(1.) In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the validity of R. 41-A of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules of 1971 ('the Rules') framed by Government under S. 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) ('the Act') principally on two grounds (i) that the rule was beyond the rule making power of Government and (ii) that the rule was violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. On difference of opinion between us on both the grounds, these cases were referred to Rama Jois, J. who has furnished his opinion concurring with the opinion expressed by Narayana Rai Kudur, J., who had held that the Rule was in- travires of the Act and was not violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. In the light of the opinions expressed by the majority, the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned Rule is liable to be rejected.
(2.) In the result, we hold that these Writ Petitioners are liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss these Writ Petitions and discharge the Rule issued in these cases. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Orders on the Oral Application made by the Petitioners for Certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court and for stay After we dictated our order dismissing these writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners seek for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133 and 134A of the Constitution and for stay of the operation of our order atleast for a period of one month from this day. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that the order made by us holding that the impunged rule was intravires of the Act and was not violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution raises substantial questions of law of general importance and the same needs to be decided by the Supreme Court and these are fit cases for grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for grant of stay.
(3.) Sri M. R. Achar learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents opposes the oral applications made by the petitioners for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal and for stay.