The requirement for a trade license under municipal law does not apply to the exhibition of cinematographic films already regulated by specific cinema legislation.

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned Notice issued by respondent No.1, bearing No.Na.Sa.Chi/Aa.Sa/ C.R/123/2023-24. dated 9.12.2024 (produced at Annexure 'D'), allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of the Notice dated 09.12.2024 issued by Respondent No.1, whereby they have been directed to obtain a trade licence under Section 256 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the said Notice, contending that the requirement imposed therein is without authority of law and beyond the scope of the statutory provisions of the Act.

3. Ms. A. Anusha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that:

3.1. The impugned Notice dated 09.12.2024 issued by Respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to obtain a trade licence under Section 256 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is not sustainable.

3.2. It is her primary submission that the very foundation of the impugned Notice is misconceived in law. According to her, the activity carried on by the petitioners—namely, the exhibition of cinematographic works, does not fall within the scope of “trade” or “profession” contemplated under Section 256 of the Act so as to attract the requirement of a municipal trade licence.

3.3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are engaged in the activity of exhibiting cinematographs. Such activity, it is contended, is governed by a distinct and self-contained statutory regime, including the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 and not under the Municipalities Act.

3.4. It is further argued that Section 256 of the Act contemplates regulation of trades and operations which may have implications for public health, sanitation, safety, or municipal governance. The said provision cannot be expansively interpreted so as to include within its fold every activity generating revenue or conducted for consideration. The expression “trade” occurring in Section 256 , according to learned counsel, must receive a contextual and purposive interpretation consistent with municipal regulatory objectives.

3.5. In this regard, she relies upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Chitra Mandira v. Town Municipality reported in 2012 SCC Online Kar 6600 more particularly para 5 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

“5. The Impugned notification Annexure-E dated 28.12.2006 reveals that Rs.5,000/- is levied on the petitioners- cinema theatre owners on the ground that the business run by them falls within Part I of Schedule XIII of the Act. At the most, the petitioners’ case may fall under Entries 2 and 3 of Part I of Schedule XIII of the Act; so also their case may fall under Entry 22(xvi) of Part I of the Schedule XIII of the Act. But it appears under the scheme of the Act, there is a clear distinction made between taxes and licence fees. The power of levying licence fees conferred by sub-section (4) of Section-256 on Municipal Councils is referable to the power of regulation of trades and in exercise of that power the Municipal Council is not competent to impose fees for purpose of revenue. As has been held by