The power to fix maximum seating capacity includes the power to fix minimum seating capacity.

( 1 ) MESSERS Nataraj theatre has filed WP No. 21691 of 1995 praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein bearing No. 1730/genl. A1/ 94-3 dated 23-5-1995 (the impugned order) as illegal and arbitrary and also to set aside all the consequential orders issued by the Licensing Authority under the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (Act No. 4 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The other writ petition being WP No. 30691 of 1998 is filed by the Chand Talkies questioning the same impugned order. Messers Chand Talkies also questioned Rule 10-A of the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called as the Rules) as ultra-vires and unconstitutional insofar as the same imposes time limit for reduction of seating capacity in the petitioner s cinema theatre.

( 2 ) AS both the writ petitions came to be framed in the same set of facts and circumstances and raise common questions of law and facts, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) BEFORE considering the questions of law, the facts leading to filing of these cases may be briefly stated. Messers Nataraj theatre is a theatre with ultra-modern facilities. The theatre s gross collection came down in recent years. The reason attributed by the petitioner is the advent and proliferation of private Satellite television channels like Star T. V. , ET. V. and Cable T. V. etc. , In the light of the changed circumstances, the petitioner made an application to the Licensing Authority. Needless to mention that the Licensing Authority is the Joint Collector in the District and the Commissioner of Police where the cities are under a Police Commissionerate. Be that as it may, in the application made by the petitioner to the Licensing Authority he prayed for permission to reduce the seating capacity and also for enhancement of the rates. In the said application dated 8-8-1995 he explained various increasing difficulties. He also enclosed the profit and loss account and other necessary documents. If the Licensing Authority grants permission for reduction of seating capacity, the petitioner says that there will not be any loss to the Government of A. P. with regard to collection of entertainment tax. The Licensing Authority vide Proceedings in Roc. No. 9077/95 (c2) dated 25-8-1995 rejected the petitioner s application dated 8-8-1995. The Licensing Authority entirely based its orders on the directions contained in the impugned order. The rejection is also on the ground that the petitioner already availed the facility of reduction of seating capacity after 21-5-1988 and therefore the same is not liable to be considered afresh. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THE facts in WP No. 30691 of 1998 may also be noted in brief. The petitioner applied to the Licensing Authority seeking reduction of seating capacity from 650 to 325. The reasons are the same as mentioned above. The petitioner also mentioned that the theatre being a non-air-conditioned one, there is no scope for increase in the admission rates. The said application was rejected by the Licensing Authority on 28-10-1998. In the order, the Licensing Authority observed that the petitioner has already availed the facility of reduction of seating capacity to 20% in accordance with the impugned order. Therefore, he is not eligible for further reduction in seating capacity. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this Court. The petitioner has also impeached Rule 10-A of the Rules on the ground that the same violates the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India besides being ultra-vires the Act and rule making power. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Licensing Authority has got absolute right to reduce the seats in the cinema theatre. Such right is only subject to the provisi