KODUNGALOOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. No. 13876/92 is the Kodungallur Municipal Council represented by the Chairman. It is disputed whether the Chairman can represent a Municipal Council. The Council can be represented only by the Commissioner as it then stood and now by the Secretary in terms of the new Act. The O.P. No. 4728/93 is filed by two citizens residing within the jurisdiction of the Kodungallur Municipality and first petitioner claims himself to be the convenor of "Cinemas wadaka Sanghom" functioning in Kodungallur from 1988 onwards. All of them challenge the order marked as Ext. P9 in O.P. No. 13876/92-B, which is Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 4728/93. In form Ext. P1 is a letter addressed from the Government, Local Administration Department to the Municipal Commissioner (through (Chairman) Kodungallur Municipality, wherein it is made clear that "As per the provisions of law contained in the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act it is the privilege of the Proprietor to fix the rate for admission to the theatres concerned and the Municipality's duty is only to revise the Entertainment taxes. It is further stated that "Neither the Commissioner nor the Government have got any discretion under the law to fix the rate of admission". Ext P9 is challenged by the petitioners as the said order gives unbridled power to the theatre owners to fix the rate of admission. It is further submitted by the petitioners that the theatre owners cannot fix unilaterally rate of admission. The maximum ceiling has to be specified by the licencing authority concerned in terms of the 'Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958. It is their further submission that Ext. P9 is not an order by Government and it is unauthorised. It is further submitted that Ext. P9 is arbitrary to the extent it confers power to the Cinema Owners to fix the rate of admission to the Cinema theatres, that itself take away the regulatory measures ensured under the said Act' and Rules.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 7 submit that Ext. P9 is an order passed by Government in an appeal tiled by the Cinema Theatre owners resorting to the provision contained in second part of special condition No. 3 in the licence. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness in Ext. P9. Moreover, on the basis of the subsequent interim order, the rates were revised by the licencing authorities upon application by the theatre owners and therefore, the issue has become infructuous.

(3.) But one thing is clear that the views of the Government have been made clear in Ext. P9 that the licencing authority has no role in the fixation of rate of admission and that it is the exclusive domain of the theatre owners. Whether this is correct is the issue involved, inspite of the subsequent revision in the admission ticket rate.