DEEPAK THEATRE, DHURI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 06-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DEEPAK '.THEATRE, DHURI 
v. 
'STAIB OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
. DECEMBER 6, 1991 
[K. RAMASWAMY, M. FATIIlMA BEEVI· AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL; JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 19(1) (g~inema Theatre~lassification of·seats and pre-
C scription of admissi<>n rates-Pawer of licensing authority under Punjab Cine-
mas (Regulation) Act, j952.......:..whether ultra vires and violative of 
Punjab Cinkmas (Regulation) Act, 1952/Punj<ib Cinemas RuleS: 
. 
, 
, 
' 
' 
'., 
' 
' 
. 
I 
Sectfons 5, 9/Ruli 8icensing authority~_:.Powers to i::lassify seats and 
D prescribe admissionfe~ons~itutionalvalidiiy of 
. 
. 
The appellant has been ~~hibiting cinematograph films on a licence 
granted to him under Section 5 of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 
1952~ The licensing af!ihority classifi,ed the seats for admission into four 
cla5ses and fixed t.he rates of admission to the four classes. Appellant filed 
E a ·writ; Petition _before- the High Court challenging the power ,of the 
licensing authority. in classifying . the classes· and contending that it of-
fended its right to carry on business·under Artide 19(1)(g) .of the. Consti-
tution or India. The appellant also challenged Rule 4 · of the Punjab 
Cinemas Rules and condition 4A ·of the Conditions of Licence . 
F 
. 
~. I 
I 
L' 
. : 
'.A learned Single Judge' declared the regulation ultra vires or the 
power,'and offending Article.• 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.· On a· Letters 
Patent Appeal, the Division ·Bench of the High Court reversed the judg-
ment and upheld ·the power of the Licencing Autliority. It also held that 
the• regulation did not offend 'Arti'cle 19(1)(g) of 'the-Constitution. ·Ag• 
G grieved against this decisfon;the'appellant preferred the present appeal by 
special'leave. 
. ' 
. 
. 
. 
. 
' 
. . . 
~ : 
· DismisSing the appeaj, this.'Court, 
• 
, ' 
I 
~' 
~ 
" 
. 
• 
' 
• 
' 
. : . 
· · HELD: ~. Sec:tion 5 ~r the ~njab_Ci~e~as (Reg1;1iatiqn) A.ct, ~952 
H read With Rule 4 of Punjab Cineinas.Rules and' condition, 4A of th~ licence 
242 
.... _.- ..... -c~- .,,.._ ••'"'""'*· '•· • '•· ,,.,,.,._,,-~-• 
•• 
r 
,.--
-
DEEPAK THEATRE v. STATE 
243 
is a regulatory measure to fix the rates ,of admission and classification of A 
the seating in the interest of the general public. It is.within the power of 
the licensing authority. They do not _impinge upon th!! ful)damental right 
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to trade, avocation 
or business of the licen~ee under the Act. It is a reasonable restriction 
under Article 19(6) of the. Constitution, imposed in the public interest. 
[250 D, EJ 
B 
2. It is settled law that the rules validly made under the Act, for all 
intents and purposes, be deemed to be part of the statute. The conditions 
of the licence issued under the rules form an integral part of the statute. 
The power to regulate may include the power to license or to refuse the 
licence or to require taking out a licence and may also include the power 
to tax or exempt from taxation, but not the power to impose a tax under 
the rule-making power unless there is a valid legislation in that behalf. 
Therefore, the power to regulate a particular business or calling implies 
the power to prescribe and enforce all such proper and .reasonable rules 
and regulations as may be deemed necessary to conduct the business in a 
proper and orderly manner. It also includes the authority to prescribe the 
reasonable rules, regulations or conditions subject to which the business 
may be permitted or conducted. A co-joint reading of Sections 5 and 9 of 
the Act, Rule 4 and condition 4A gives the power to the licensing authority 
to classify seats and prescribe rates of admission into the cinema theatre. 
. 
-[245 H; 246 A-CJ 
3. Access to aIJd admission into theatre is a facility and concomitant 
right_ to a cine goer public. Classification of seats ~nd fixation of rates of 
admission according to paying capacity of a cine goer, is also ~n integral 
powei: of regulation. Power to fix rates of admission ~ncludes power to 
amend and_revise the rates from .time to time. The statute vests that power 
in the licensi~g authority subject to control by the State Government. The 
fixation of the rates of admission has thus become an integral and essential 
part of the power and regulation of exhibition of cinematograph. 
[247 H; 248 A] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Minerva Talkies, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [1988] 
(Supp.) SCC 176, relied on. 
1G 
D.K.V. Pra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.