2012 (3) ALT 393
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Beyond Basiks Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Home (General-A) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. & Others
WRIT PETITION NOs. 4430 of 2009, 5474, 6086, 6565 of 2009; 19020 AND 20357, 25403 OF 2011
Decided On: 27-02-2012
B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Articles 19 (l)(g) and 14 - A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, Section 11 A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, Rule 17-A:-The G.O. issued by Government conferring monopoly rights to a single agency GEPL for on-line booking is violative of the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and is also beyond the scope of Rule 17-A by any stretch of imagination. (Para 51)
C) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Articles 226 and 14 - A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, Sections 4 and 5 A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, Rule 17-A :-The mere fact that the writ petitioners have participated in the process of selection for awarding the license of on-line booking cinema tickets does not preclude the right of the petitioners from filing this writ petition when the procedure is contrary to Article 14 and also ultra vires of Section 4 and 5 of the Act. (Para 5.5)
COMMON ORDER:
Except in W.P.Nos.20357 and 25403 of 2011, G.O.Ms. No.110 Home (General-A) Department dated 19.2.2009 is under challenge in all the other Writ Petitions which form part of this batch. While the relief sought for in W.P. No.20357 of 2011 is to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s request for grant of an on-line licence, and in preventing them from conducting their business as an on-line agency, as arbitrary and illegal; the relief sought for in W.P. No.25403 of 2011 is to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the business carried on by the petitioner in conducting on-line booking through e-ticketing system of tickets in respect of theatres within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and in insisting on a separate licence, as arbitrary and illegal. However both Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.20357 of 2011, and Sri P.Sriraghuram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.25403 of 2011, would submit that it would be suffice for disposal of these two Writ Petitions also if this Court were to restrict its examination to the validity of G.O.Ms. No.110 dated 19.2.2009.
2. The Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter called the “Rules”) were amended by G.O.Ms. No.47, Home (General-A) Department dated 10.3.2006 whereby an online booking system was statutorily introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Proposals were received from five agencies to operate the online ticket booking system in cinema theatres in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Galaxy Entertainers Private Ltd, (hereinafter called GEPL), also submitted a proposal to the Government on 5.2.2004 expressing interest in operating the online ticket booking system. The Government, vide G.O.Ms. No.48 Home (Gen A) Department dated 10.3.2006, accorded permission to GEPL to operate the said online ticket booking system. In view of adverse newspaper reports, G.O.Ms. No.48 dated 10.3.2006 was cancelled by G.O.Rt. No.837 Home (Gen A) Department dated 4.5.2006. Thereafter the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1966, Home (General-A) Department dated 21.11.2006 constituting a committee, as computerized ticketing in cinema theatres in the State of A.P. would facilitate disclosure of sales volumes so as to prevent tax evasion; this system would bring transparency in ticket booking, and improvement in the entertainment tax collection system; and thereby black marketing of cinema tickets would be prevented to a great extent. The Government deemed it proper, therefore, to entrust the same to a suitable agency for selecting and short listing firms to operate such a system after duly examining their technical expertise, financial background etc. The Committee, constituted by G.O.Rt. No.1966, Home (General-A) Department dated 21.11.2006, was required to finalize agencies for providing the on-line cinema ticket booking system in cinema halls in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The committee was directed to examine in detail the scheme for its implementation either through a single agency or through multiple agencies. Thereafter the Committee submitted its report making 29 recommendations for implementation of the on-line ticket booking system. It recommended multiple agencies. The Government, by G.O.Rt. No.1571, Home (General-A) Department, dated 25.8.2008, constituted another committee to examine whether to have a centralized single state level operating system with one agency instead of multiple agencies, and to consider the representations received by it. The three member Committee heard the President, A.P. Film Chambers of Commerce, the Hyderabad State Film Chambers of Commerce, the Telugu Film Producers Council and five online ticket agencies including GEPL, and submitted its report dated 3.11.2008 to the Government. It is seen from the said report that the Home Department had forwarded the applications, along with the proposals and representations submitted by eight agencies
State of Punjab v. Hari Kishan Sharma: AIR 1966 SC 1081. (Para 19)
Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor: AIR 1936 PC 253. (Para 23)
Ballabhdas Agarwala v. J.e. Chakravarthi: AIR 1960 SC 576. (Para 23)
State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh: AIR 1964 SC 358. (Para 23)
Gujarat Electricity Board v. Girdharlal Motilal: AIR 1969 SC 267. (Para 23)
Haresh Oayararn Thakur v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2000 SC 2281 (Para 23)
Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Oebi: AIR 1970 SC 228. (Para 28)
State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal Vyas: (1971) 3 SCC 705. (para 29)
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Punjab Omgs Manufacturers Assn.: (1999) 6 SCC 247. (Para 29)
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab: AIR 1955 SC 549. (Para 29)
Naraindas v. State of M.P : (1974) 4 SCC 788. (Para 29)
Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 679. (Para 29)
Daya v. Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports: 1963 (2) SCR 73. (Para 29)
Rashbihari Panda v. State of Orissa: (1969) 1 SCC 414. (Para 31)
Dimapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice Chancellor
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar: 1955 (1) SCR 1045. (Para 31)
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice SR Tendolkar: 1959 SCR 279. (Para 31)
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India: (2002) 2 SCC 333. (Para 36)
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India: 2009 (6) SCJ 912. (Para 36)
Glass Chatons Importers and Users Assn. v. Union of India: 1962 (1) SCR 862. (Para 36)
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India: AIR 1979 SC 1628. (Para 37)
Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana: AIR 1985 SC 1147. (Para 37)
P. Narayana Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh: 2010 (3) ALT 392 (D.B.). (Para 37)
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal: AIR 2000 SC 3313. (Para 39)
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India: AIR 1996 SC 2462. (Para 45)
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India: (1972) 2 SCC 788. (Para 45)
Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India: (2003) 4 SCC 289. (Para 49)
Sher Singh v. Union of India: (1995) 6 SCC 515. (Para 49)
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: AIR 1986 SC 180. (Para 53)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.