Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 743
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN
Kamaraj Theatre, Royakottai, Dharmapuri District, represented by its Managing Partner — Lrosjmam
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home (Cinemas-I) Department, Madras and Others
W.A.184 of 1996, CM.P. 2765 of 1996, W.P.Nos.16589 and 16590 of 1995 — 2924 of 1996, 14880, 14881 of 1995, 15507, 15508 of 1996, 9344 of 1996, 16529 and 16530 of 1995, 6480 of 1996 and connected W.M.Ps.
Decided On : 23-07-1996
K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel for Appellant. K.V.Venkatapathi, Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. S.Sethurathinam, Senior Counsel, for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
The amendment to Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, was not ultra vires of the rule making powers of the Government or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CINEMA REGULATION - RULE 14 - AMENDMENT - VALIDITY - Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 - Sec. 5, 10, 11 - Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 - Rule 14 - Amendment by G.O.Ms.1326, dated 9. 1995 - Validity - Challenge - Maintainability - Scope of sub-rules (1) and (2) - Distance between permanent and travelling cinemas - Relaxation - Power of State Government - Provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 - Validity - Whether ultra vires of the rule making powers of the Government or hit by Art.14 of the Constitution - Whether arbitrary and unreasonable - Whether contrary to the object mentioned in the order - Whether nexus between the objects stated in the preamble and the sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the amendment to Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, introduced by G.O.Ms.1326, dated 9. 1995, on the grounds that it was not consistent with the object mentioned in the preamble to the order, that it was arbitrary and unreasonable, and that it seriously affected the rights of the owners or proprietors of the permanent cinemas.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amendment to Rule 14 was not ultra vires of the rule making powers of the Government or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. It held that the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and also the sub-rules (1) and (2) were valid and that there was a nexus between the objects stated in the preamble and the sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, was ultra vires of the rule making powers of the Government or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and also the sub-rules (1) and (2) were valid? 3. Whether there was a nexus between the objects stated in the preamble and the sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amendment to Rule 14 was not ultra vires of the rule making powers of the Government or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution because: a) The amendment did not give a go-by to the distance rule, but only to the population criteria. b) The amendment was in conformity with the policy outlined in the preamble to the Act and the other provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. c) The power to exempt was to be exercised in conformity with the principles and policy of the legislation. d) Any individual order of exemption passed by the Government could be the subject of judicial review by the courts. 2. The Court held that the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and also the sub-rules (1) and (2) were valid because: a) The provisos enabled the State Government to effectively accomplish the object mentioned in the preamble. b) The insistence of the reasons to be recorded by the State Government for relaxing the requirement of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 acted as a safety device to prevent arbitrary exercise of the power. c) The Government was expected to exercise its power reasonable and such exercise of power had to be free from arbitrariness. 3. The Court held that there was a nexus between the objects stated in the preamble and the sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules because: a) The construction of cinema theatre and acquiring of land had become very costly. b) There was stiff competition due to Cable T.V. network. c) It may not be possible wherever necessary to have permanent cinema theatres. d) One of objects of the rule was to encourage touring cinemas to ensure entertainment through cinema to the public outside the cities.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions and the connected W.M.Ps. It also dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 184 of 1996 and the C.M.P.
K. A. Swami, C.J.
When Writ Appeal No.184 of 1996 came up for hearing, we considered it necessary to hear Writ Petition No.16589 of 1995 and all other connected writ petitions. Accordingly, all the connected writ petitions are posted along with the writ appeal and we have heard both sides.
2. In all these writ petitions, the validity of the amendment to Rule 14 as introduced by G.O.Ms.1326, dated 9. 1995 is challenged on the grounds that the amendment is not consistent or in conformity with the object mentioned in the preamble to the order, that the amendment is arbitrary and unreasonable and seriously affects the rights of the owners or proprietors of the permanent cinemas.
3. G.O.Ms. 1326, dated 9. 1995 substituted sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), Sub-rules (1) and (2) as existed before the substitution were as follows:
" 14( 1) (a) In areas other than pilgrim towns, tourist centres, municipal corporations, the adequacy of existing places for the exhibition of cinematograph films shall be decided on the basis of one theatre for a population for every 25,000 - Explanation: Area for this purpose would mean area within 8 kilometres radius from the proposed site for which no objection certificate is sought and the population of all the villages falling within that 8 Kilometres radius shall be taken into account.
.(b) No travelling cinemas shall be allowed in towns with a population of 50,000 and above if there are three or more permanent cinemas.
.(2) The restrictions in respect of distance between cinemas shall be as specified below. A travelling cinema in any place shall not be allowed within a distance of 1.609 Km. of the nearest permanent cinema located in the same local area or in the adjacent village, panchayat or town or in the City of Madras. Local area for this purpose means the area within the jurisdiction of a municipal council or a Panchayat Board or a revenue village.
The distance between any two travelling cinemas shall be not less than O.402 Km. There shall be no restriction in regard to the distance between one permanent cinema and another permanent cinema.“
The aforesaid sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules are substituted by the following sub-rules are substituted by the following sub-rules under G.O.Ms.1326, dated 9. 1995:
”In the said Rules:
(1) In rule 14, for sub-rules (1) and
(2), the following sub-rules be substituted, namely:
.(1) There shall be no restriction to the grant of licence to permanent and travelling cinemas on the basis of population
.(2) A travelling cinema in any place should not be allowed within a distance of 1.609 Km. of the nearest permanent cinema located in the same local area or in the adjacent local area.
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, “Local Area” means the areas within the jurisdiction of a local authority:
Provided that the Government may for reasons to be recorded in writing permit a travelling cinema within the distance specified in this clause from the nearest permanent cinema. Provided further that a travelling cinema may be allowed to complete its full term of five years even if a permanent cinema comes up within the distance specified in this clause:
(b) The distance between any two travelling cinemas shall be not less travelling than O.402 km. Provided that the Government for reasons to be recorded in writing may permit a travelling cinema within the distance specified in this clause from the nearest travelling cinema,
.(c) There shall be no restriction in regard to the distance between one permanent cinema and another permanent cinema“.
The object as stated for substituting sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 was as follows:
”Cinema theatres are the main sources of entertainment for the public and more particularly for those in rural areas. In view of the steep increase in land prices and competition from Cable TV. Networks, satelite Televisio
