Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Ankam Madhava Rao - Appellant
Versus
Andhra State Government, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 12-15-54
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT - LICENSING AUTHORITY - INSTRUCTIONS BY STATE GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY - RULE 11-A - ULTRA VIRES - EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS - SCOPE - CANCELLATION OF LICENCE - WRIT PETITION - PREMATURITY.: 1. Rule 11-A of the Cinematograph Rules, 1933, framed by the State Government under S. 9 (3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, is ultra vires the rule-making power of the State Government as it is not within the intendment of S. 9 (3) or the object of the Act as stated in the preamble. 2. Executive instructions issued by the State Government under S. 5 (3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, must be within the intendment and object of the Act and cannot be issued in respect of matters which are beyond the rule-making power of the State Government under S. 9 (3) of the Act. 3. The State Government has no power to cancel a licence issued by the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1918. 4. A writ petition challenging an order of the State Government cancelling a licence issued by the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1918, is not premature if the order of the State Government specifically sets aside the order of the licensing authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, four partners in a cinema theatre, applied for the renewal of their licence under the Cinematograph Act, 1918. The third respondent, who was also a partner in the theatre, objected to the renewal of the licence in the names of all the partners. The District Magistrate, being the licensing authority, granted the licence in the names of all the partners. The third respondent appealed to the State Government, which issued instructions to the licensing authorities not to renew a licence in the name of a person other than the original licensee except in certain specified cases. The State Government also framed a rule, Rule 11-A, to the same effect. The District Magistrate, acting on the instructions of the State Government, set aside his earlier order and refused to renew the licence in the names of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order of the State Government and the rule framed by it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 11-A of the Cinematograph Rules, 1933, was ultra vires the rule-making power of the State Government as it was not within the intendment of S. 9 (3) or the object of the Act as stated in the preamble. The court also held that the executive instructions issued by the State Government under S. 5 (3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, were not within the intendment and object of the Act and could not be issued in respect of matters which were beyond the rule-making power of the State Government under S. 9 (3) of the Act. The court further held that the State Government had no power to cancel a licence issued by the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1918. The court also held that the writ petition was not premature as the order of the State Government specifically set aside the order of the licensing authority.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 11-A of the Cinematograph Rules, 1933, is ultra vires the rule-making power of the State Government? 2. Whether the executive instructions issued by the State Government under S. 5 (3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, are within the intendment and object of the Act? 3. Whether the State Government has the power to cancel a licence issued by the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1918? 4. Whether the writ petition is premature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 11-A of the Cinematograph Rules, 1933, is ultra vires the rule-making power of the State Government as it is not within the intendment of S. 9 (3) or the object of the Act as stated in the preamble. 2. Executive instructions issued by the State Government under S. 5 (3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, must be within the intendment and object of the Act and cannot be issued in respect of matters which are beyond the rule-making power of the State Government under S. 9 (3) of the Act. 3. The State Government has no power to cancel a licence issued by the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1918.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the State Government cancelling the licence issued by the licensing authority and also quashed Rule 11-A of the Cinematograph Rules, 1933.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. of the Constitution of India to call for the records and to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Order of the Government of Andhra in G. O. R. No. 421 dated 12-8-1954.
( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this writ petition and which are either admitted or proved may be set out in their chronological sequence.
( 3 ) THE four petitioners in this Writ Petition and one B. M. Rao (3rd respondent) have been partners and lessees of a cinema theatre called Sri Kesari Picture. Eluru, under a registered lease deed, dated 9-11-1947, executed in their favour by the owner. The lease provides for a rent of Rs. 550. per month and is to subsist for a period of ten years. The petitioners, B. M. Rao, (3rd respondent) and the owner of the theatre filed O. S. No. 2 of 1948 on the file of the District Court of West Godavari, for possession of the cinema theatre. There was a decree in their favour, which was confirmed by the High Court of Madras in A. S. No. 549 of 1948 Mad (A), on its file on 20-4-1949. In pursuance of that decree, possession was taken by all the partners. It is common ground that the licence under the Cinematograph Act and the licence under the Cinematograph Act and the licence under the Places of Public Resort Act were previously granted in thename of 3rd respondent. In or about February 1953, there were certain differences between the petitioners and 3rd respondent. On an application filed by the petitioners, the licence under the Places of Public Resort Act as granted to the petitioners jointly with 3rd respondent. The licence under the Cinematograph Act issued in the name of 3rd respondent was to expire on 31-5-1953. Here it may be stated that a licence is granted for one year at a time and is renewable form year to year. The 3rd respondent did not apply for the renewal of the licence. the petitioners, however, applied on 29-5-1953 for the issue of a licence in the names of all the 5 partners, that is, the petitioners and 3rd respondent. To the petitioners application for licence, 3rd respondent filed objections on 26-6-1953, wherein he stated that the licence should not be granted in the names of the five partners and prayed that the application for licence may be dismissed. The 2nd respondent in this petition is the District Magistrate of West godavari, who is the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act. He gave notice to the parties and heard their counsel. He passed asn Order on 3-8-1953, which is as follows:"the petitioners four in number and the respondent are the joint lessees of Sri Kesari Picture Palace, Eluru. The licence is in the name of the respondent who is the managing proprietor while the petitioners are actually running the cinema. Now that differences arose between the respondent and the petitioners, the petitioners request tht their names also be included in the licence for the smooth running of the cinema. Their names have already been included in the Places of Public Resort Act licence issued by the Municipality. Since the petitioners are the joint lessees along with the respondent and since there are differences between them and the respondent regarding the management, it is desirable that the licence be issued in the names of all the partners in the interest of the smooth running of the cinema. There is nothing in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, that licence should not be issued in the name of a body of individuals. The licence will, therefore, be granted in the name of all the five joint lessees. "
( 4 ) PURSUANT to this Order a licence was granted jointly in the names of the four petitioners and 3rd respondent.
( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent filked a petition, dated 9-1-1954 before the government of Andhra (law Department) praying that the Order of the District Magistrate may be cnacelled and that the status quo ante may be restored in respect of the licence. The four petitioners filed petitions on 18-3-1954, 2-3-1954, and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
