Ramakanthi Talkies vs Dist. Magistrate, S.K.

As a common question of law arises for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.

In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the action of the District Magistrate, South Kanara (hereinafter referred to as the D.M.) directing them to replace the existing seats in lower classes by cushion seals or alternatively reduce their rates.

Among others, the petitioners are running permanent cinema theatres in the City of Mangalare by obtaining renewal of licences under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules). When their licences were due to expire for the calendar year 1976, the petitioners approached the D.M. for renewal of their licences on which he inspected the theatres and inter alia directed the petitioners to replace the seats in lower classes with cushion seats or alternatively reduce their rates on or before 31-12-1976. After extending the time from time to time, on 31-3-1977 the D.M. extended the time upto 30-4-1977 for the said purpose. On 19-4-1977, the petitioners approached this Court challenging the action of the D.M. and obtained stay of operation of the impugned direction, as a result of which the D.M. has been renewing the licences without insisting on the directions issued by him.

Sri K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Act and the Rules do not empower the D.M. to direct a licensee to replace the existing seats with cushion seats or alternatively reduce the charges and the impugned direction is wholly unauthorised and illegal.

Sri M.R. Achar, learned II Addl. Government Advocate, urged that the impugned direction could be validly issued under Rule 5(2) of the Rules.

The Act and the Rules do not authorise the D.M. to direct a licensee to replace the existing seats with cushion seats and on such failure, to reduce the rates in respect of those seats. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 only empowers the authority to direct a licensee to provide ''additional safe-guards'' in running a cinema theatre. It is difficult to conceive the direction to replace the existing seats with cushion seats or reduce the rates as falling within the term ''additional safe-guards''. The term ''additional safe-guards'' in the context has reference to the theatre and the users of the theatre as a whole and not to the nature of seats and the charges to be fixed thereto in respect of a particular class. Additional safety measures to be provided in a theatre for the safety of the visitors, the nature of the seats to be provided and their charges, cannot be construed as one and the same. Even Rule 49 of the Rules which makes elaborate provision for regulating the condition of the seating accommodation does not also empower the D.M. to direct a licensee to replace the existing seats with cushion seats or to reduce the charges if the seats are not replaced. Rule-55 of the Rules cannot be read as authorising the D.M. to issue the impugned direction. In the absence of any express power conferred by the Act and the Rules, the D.M. had no authority to impose the impugned conditions which he may consider as necessary or reasonable. In this view, the criticism of Sri Shivashankar Bhat that the direction issued by the D.M. is wholly unauthorised and is illegal, is well founded.

In the light of my above discussion I quash the impugned directions issued by the D.M. and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to him to consider and dispose of the applications made by the petitioners for renewal of their licenses without reference to the same.

Rule issued is made absolute.

In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Sri M.R. Achar, learned II Additional Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance for the respondent in W.P. No. 3221 of 1977 within 15 days from this day.