1974 Supreme(Pat) 34

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.P.Singh and S.K.Jha JJ.
Vishnu Talkies M/s.
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1402 of 1973 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 11, 1974

Headnote:

The Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (Bihar Act XV of 1954) (the Act) empowers the District Magistrate, as the licensing authority, to grant licenses for exhibiting cinematographic films, subject to certain conditions and restrictions. The petitioner, a partnership firm carrying on the business of exhibiting films in Ranchi, challenged the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi, directing that no show should be held before 3 p.m. on days when schools, colleges, or other educational institutions were open, on the grounds that: (i) Section 5(2) of the Act conferred unguided, unbridled, arbitrary, and uncanalised power on the licensing authority, thereby attracting the infraction of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; (ii) Section 5(2) suffered from the vice of excessive delegation; (iii) even if Section 5(2) was not ultra vires, the restriction imposed by the Deputy Commissioner was not authorized by the Act and was unreasonable, as it was not regulatory in character but a prohibition on carrying on the petitioner's trade or business; and (iv) the restriction could not be imposed during the currency of the petitioner's license without affording it an opportunity of being heard, as this would be against the fundamental principles of natural justice embodied in the doctrine of audi alteram partem.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a partnership firm carrying on the business of exhibiting films in Ranchi, challenged the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi, directing that no show should be held before 3 p.m. on days when schools, colleges, or other educational institutions were open.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that: (i) Section 5(2) of the Act did not confer unguided, unbridled, arbitrary, and uncanalised power on the licensing authority, as it was subject to the control of the State Government, the appellate and revisional authority under the Act, and to any rules framed under Section 9(2)(a) prescribing the terms, conditions, and restrictions subject to which licenses may be granted; (ii) Section 5(2) did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation, as it did not confer any rule-making power on the licensing authority; (iii) the restriction imposed by the Deputy Commissioner was not unreasonable, as it was in the public interest to protect students from exploitation and moral and material abandonment, and was saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution; (iv) the restriction could be imposed during the currency of the petitioner's license, as Section 5(2) empowered the licensing authority to determine the terms, conditions, and restrictions on which licenses may be granted from time to time; and (v) the principles of natural justice did not apply in the instant case, as the decision was taken as a matter of public policy in the public interest and there was no possible or reasonable question to be answered by the petitioner if called upon to meet the case before the licensing authority.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 5(2) of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (Bihar Act XV of 1954) (the Act) conferred unguided, unbridled, arbitrary, and uncanalised power on the licensing authority, thereby attracting the infraction of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 2. Whether Section 5(2) of the Act suffered from the vice of excessive delegation. 3. Whether the restriction imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi, directing that no show should be held before 3 p.m. on days when schools, colleges, or other educational institutions were open, was authorized by the Act and was reasonable. 4. Whether the restriction could be imposed during the currency of the petitioner's license without affording it an opportunity of being heard, as this would be against the fundamental principles of natural justice embodied in the doctrine of audi alteram partem.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that: (i) Section 5(2) of the Act did not confer unguided, unbridled, arbitrary, and uncanalised power on the licensing authority, as it was subject to the control of the State Government, the appellate and revisional authority under the Act, and to any rules framed under Section 9(2)(a) prescribing the terms, conditions, and restrictions subject to which licenses may be granted; (ii) Section 5(2) did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation, as it did not confer any rule-making power on the licensing authority; (iii) the restriction imposed by the Deputy Commissioner was not unreasonable, as it was in the public interest to protect students from exploitation and moral and material abandonment, and was saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution; (iv) the restriction could be imposed during the currency of the petitioner's license, as Section 5(2) empowered the licensing authority to determine the terms, conditions, and restrictions on which licenses may be granted from time to time; and (v) the principles of natural justice did not apply in the instant case, as the decision was taken as a matter of public policy in the public interest and there was no possible or reasonable question to be answered by the petitioner if called upon to meet the case before the licensing authority.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order was valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.