MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise common questions of law. These were earlier filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and later transferred to this Court to be treated as petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) In the Fist petition (CWP No. 4408/93) there are five respondents, namely, (1) Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; (2) Films Division, a department of the Minsitry of Information and Broadcasting, Lucknow; (3) State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary; (4) Delhi Administration, now the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; and (5) The Commissioner of Police, the Licensing Authority under the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The petitioner in this case is an association of Film exhibitors and distributors and is a body corporate and is duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. The members of the petitioner are engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of motion pictures in the area covered by Delhi and Uttar Pradesh commonly known as Delhi- Uttar Pradesh Circuit. They seek a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the films division not to collect 1% of the total collection of a week of rental by an exhibitor of Delhi/U.P. territory, and rather direct the Films division to pay "rental" to exhibitors. They also seek to strike off condition 22 of the licence granted under the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981, and condition 2 of the licence granted under the U.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1951, being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. A similar writ is also sought directing the State of U.P., Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and the Commissioner of Police to grant licence to the exhibitors without requiring them to accept the films of the films division and/or any particular class of films being called "approved films". Then finally a declaration is sought declaring that section 5(4) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, do not empower the respondents to direct the exhibitors to accept the approved films of the films division, these provisions being violative of the constitution. During the course of hearing of this petition challenge is also thrown to the constitutional validity of condition No.l5 of the licence granted under the Delhi Cinematograph Rules. We heard arguments on validity of condition No.l5 as well though the question was not in term raised in petition.

(3.) In the second petition (CWP No. 4703/93), the petitioner is a body corporate and its members are distributors and exhibitors of motion pictures in the Stale of West Bengal. In this case there are four respondents. First and second respondent being the same as in the first writ petition; the third respondent is the State of West Bengal through its Secretary; and the fourth respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, the licensing authority for grant of licence for exhibition of motion piculures in cinema houses. In this a declaration is sought declaring that section 5(3) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (for short 'Bengal Act'), docs not empower the respondents to direct exhibitors to accept the films of the films division, and that the section is arbitrary, uncanalised and unconstitutional. Then a declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction is also sought that respondents have no power to direct the exhibitors to accept any particular class of films. Finally, a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction is sought directing the Police Commissioner, Calcutta, to grant cinema licences without requiring them to accept the films of Films Division and/or any other particular class of films, and that the Police Commissioner or the State Government should not require the exhibitors to claim any clearance from the Films Division before the grant or renewal of the licence.