Back
High Court Of Delhi
ISHERDAS SAHNI AND BROTHERS - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION - Respondent
Civil Writ 1010 of 1979
Decided On : 11/29/1979
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT - RELAXATION OF RULES - WITHDRAWAL - POWER OF ADMINISTRATION - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISO TO RULE 3 (3) OF DELHI CINEMATOGRAPH RULES, 1953 - SECTIONS 14 AND 21 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT - APPLICABILITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRE-EXISTING THEATRES AND THEATRES LICENSED AFTER 1953 RULES - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH RULES - HEARING BEFORE WITHDRAWAL OF RELAXATION - REASONS FOR WITHDRAWAL - TIMING OF WITHDRAWAL DURING CURRENCY OF LICENCES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, holders of licenses to run cinemas under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953, challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Delhi Administration canceling relaxations granted to them to increase the number of seats in their theaters. The relaxations were granted to compensate for a 10% cut in admission rates imposed in 1975, but after the petitioners were allowed to increase rates freely, the Administration withdrew the relaxations.
Finding of the Court:
1. The power to grant relaxations under the proviso to Rule 3 (3) of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953, is of a general nature and depends on numerous factors that may vary from case to case. Whether a relaxation is permanent or revocable depends on the facts of each case. 2. The main reason for granting the relaxations was to compensate the petitioners for the loss caused by the 10% cut in admission rates. Since this reason no longer existed, the Administration was justified in withdrawing the relaxations. 3. The withdrawal of relaxations does not automatically mean that all additional seats installed in the theaters must be dismantled. The Administration must determine which seats contravene the Rules and order the removal of only those seats. 4. The distinction between theaters existing before the 1953 Rules and those licensed afterward must be considered when applying the Rules. Compliance with the Rules should be substantial, not rigid or inflexible. 5. A hearing was not necessary before withdrawing the relaxations because the petitioners knew that the justification for the relaxations had ceased to exist. However, a hearing should be granted before canceling any additional seats on the ground that they contravene the Rules. 6. Reasons for withdrawing the relaxations were not required to be given in the order itself, as they were obvious and had been provided in the pleadings resisting the petitioners' claims. 7. The withdrawal of relaxations during the currency of the licenses was inevitable, but the Administration should make its determination regarding the additional seats within one month. If no determination is made within that time, the petitioners may sell tickets for the additional seats.
Issues: 1. Whether the power to grant relaxations under the proviso to Rule 3 (3) of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953, is permanent or revocable. 2. Whether the withdrawal of relaxations automatically entails the dismantling of all additional seats installed in the theaters. 3. Whether a distinction should be made between theaters existing before the 1953 Rules and those licensed afterward when applying the Rules. 4. Whether a hearing is required before withdrawing the relaxations or canceling additional seats. 5. Whether reasons for withdrawing the relaxations must be given in the order itself. 6. Whether the withdrawal of relaxations during the currency of the licenses is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to grant relaxations under the proviso to Rule 3 (3) of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953, is not permanent and irrevocable. The exercise of this power depends on numerous factors that may vary from case to case, and whether a relaxation is permanent or revocable depends on the facts of each case. 2. The withdrawal of relaxations does not automatically entail the dismantling of all additional seats installed in the theaters. The Administration must determine which seats contravene the Rules and order the removal of only those seats. 3. A distinction should be made between theaters existing before the 1953 Rules and those licensed afterward when applying the Rules. Compliance with the Rules should be substantial, not rigid or inflexible. 4. A hearing is not required before withdrawing the relaxations because the petitioners knew that the justification for the relaxations had ceased to exist. However, a hearing should be granted before canceling any additional seats on the ground that they contravene the Rules. 5. Reasons for withdrawing the relaxations were not required to be given in the order itself, as they were obvious and had been provided in the pleadings resisting the petitioners' claims. 6. The withdrawal of relaxations during the currency of the licenses was inevitable, but the Administration should make its determination regarding the additional seats within one month. If no determination is made within that time, the petitioners may sell tickets for the additional seats.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of in light of the findings and observations of the court. The interim order dated 2-8-1979 was to continue in force, subject to the limitation that if no determination was made by the Administration regarding the additional seats in each building within one month, the petitioners would be free to sell tickets for the additional seats.
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein as also the petitioners in the connected writ petitions are holders of licences to run cinemas under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 (the rules) made thereunder. For some years, the Delhi Administration has been regulating the rates at which cinema tickets could be sold by the holders of the licences for running the cinema theatres in Delhi. In 1975, there was a general cut of 10% in the rates which had been already fixed by the Delhi Administration tor the sale of cinema tickets. The holders of these licences felt aggrieved by the said cut. They made representations to the Delhi Administration pointing out that already the expenses of exhibiting films and maintaining the cinema theatres had gone up for a number of years and the rates which had already been fixed were already proving unbearable and on top of it, the cut of 10% was making it uneconomical for the licensees to run the cinemas. The representation of the National Associaion of Motion Picture Exhibitors was considered by the Lt. Governor and the Administration agreed to allow the licensees to add to the existing number of seats in the cinema theatres to make good the loss caused to the licensees by the reduction in the rates by 10% which was made in 1975. Accordingly, the Administration consulted the Chief Fire Officer whose duty it was to ensure that the number and arrangement of seats is such that in case of fire evacuation of theatres would not be impeded. They also consulted the Municipal authorities whose duty was to ensure that considerations of public health are satisfied in the number of seats and in the way they are arranged as also the provision of other facilities to the spectators in these cinema theatres. Thereafter, a series of orders were issued by the Administration granting relaxations to the different licensees in compliance with the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953. In accordance with these relaxations, different licensees were allow to increase or change the number and arrangement of seats in their respective theatres as allowed by the orders of relaxation.
( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, in C. W. No. 173 of 1979 and the connected writ petitions (Reported in AIR 1979 Delhi 249), tha licensees challenged the power of the Administration to regulate the rates at which tickets for the cinema shows were sold by these licensees. It was held by this Court that under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder the Government did not have the power to regulate the rates of admission in the cinema theatres. As a result of this decision, which was given on 15-5-1979, the licensees were free to fix such rates of admission to their cinema theatres as they thought fit without being constrained in doing so by any regulation on the part of the Government While it was appreciated that the action of the Government in regulating the rates of admission was motivated by concern for the common man who should be able to recreate and educate himself by being made able to see the films exhibited in the cinema theatres, the power to regulate the rates was not contained in the Act and the Rules and, therefore, the power had to be negatived even though the consequences were such that the rates were enhanced by the licensees to the detriment of the public interest which always exists in the recreation and education of the common man living in a city like Delhi.
( 3 ) SINCE the main reason for the grant of relaxation to the licensees had disappeared inasmuch as the licensees were now free to charge such rates of admission to their cinema theatres as they pleased and also because the licensees did take advantage of this freedom and did increase the rates of admission to their respective theatres, the Lt. Governor issued an order on the 27th July, 1979 by which he cancelled with immediate effect five notifications dated 30-9-1976. 24-11-1977, 22-7-1977, 28-12-1977 and 29-3-1978 by
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
