THIRUMALA THEATRE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of cases, the petitioners have questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.181, Home (General- Administration) Department, dated 11.07.2011. By the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent-Government, in exercise of powers under A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1955 (Act 4 of 1955), has fixed the rates of admission in cinema theatres. In view of the common questions of law which arise for consideration on similar set of facts, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.20656 of 2011.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership Firm engaged in running a cinema theatre in Khammam town in the name of "Thirumala Theatre". The trade in cinema theatres is regulated by the provisions under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1955 (Act 4 of 1955) and the Rules made thereunder, viz., the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. The said Act 4 of 1955 is enacted primarily with an intent to regulate the exhibition by means of cinematography in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per Section 3 of the said Act, the cinematography exhibitions are to be licenced by the licencing authority and the licencing authority under Section 4 of the said Act, is the District Collector. As per Section 2(1-A), the District Collector in relation to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad means, the Commissioner of Police. Section 5 of the Act imposes restrictions on powers of the licencing authority. Under Section 5(2) of the Act, the licencing authority is empowered to grant licences to such persons as the authority thinks fit, subject to control of the Government, on such terms and conditions and subject to certain restrictions as it may determine. Under Section 11 of the said Act, Government is empowered to make Rules by way of Notification, for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

(3.) FURTHER , the case of the petitioner is that there is no rationale or basis for fixing the maximum rates of admission to the higher classes as has been done in the impugned orders passed by the Government. It is alleged that inspite of exorbitant increase in maintenance cost of theatres viz., increase in salaries of staff, high cost of electricity and other charges, uniform rates are fixed throughout the State irrespective of the location of the theatre, and the comforts provided in the theatres. It is submitted that by issuing the impugned order, the unequals are being treated equally and such an action on the part of the 1st respondent-Government infringes the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is specifically alleged that all the theatres in the specified Municipalities or Municipal Corporations cannot be equated as one. Alleging that the cost of setting up and running a theatre depends on the location of theatre, the type of Municipality or Municipal Corporation, the facilities provided in the theatre, including the quality of seats, sound and projection system etc., it is contended that the theatres cannot be classified merely on the single feature of the theatre being air-cooled/air-conditioned or not. It is alleged that a particular air-cooled theatre may offer better projection and sound system, better seats and fire facilities than an air- conditioned theatre, and in that view of the matter, there is no rationale basis for fixation of rates without taking into several capital costs invested by the theatre owners while constructing a cinema building. It is stated that such an action on the part of the Government, suffers from lack of reasonable classification and such an action is wholly irrational and amounts to discrimination.