LexThe PunjabCinema(Regulation)Act,1952
Punjab · state statute
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this act
[S.1]
THE PUNJAB CINEMAS (REGULATION)
ACT, 1952
(Punjab Act 11 of 1952)
CONTENTS
Sections
1 . Short title, extent and commencement.
2. Definitions.
3. Cinematograph exhibition lo be licensed.
4. Licensing authority.
5. Restrictions on powers of licensing authority,
6. Power of Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films
in certain cases.
7. Penalties.
7A, Amendment or alteration in classification of seats and rates by the
Licensee.
7B. Power of Government to amend or alter rates for admission to
cinematograph exhibition.
8. Power to suspend, cancel or revoke license.
8A. Restoration of certain cancelled licenses on payment of penalty.
9. Power to make rules.
10, Power to exempt.
11. Repeal of the Cinematograph Act, 1918,
Received the assent of the Governor of Punjab on the 16th of August, 1952 , and was first published
in the Punjab Government Gazette Extra ordinary, dated 19th August, 1 952.
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
Amended in part by Punjab Act 6 of 1955.
Amended in part by Punjab Act 28 of 1957.
Amended in part by Punjab Act 4 of 1963.
Amended in part by Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order, 1968.
Amended in part by Haryana Act 5 of 1968.
Amended in part by Haryana Act of 21of 1969.
An Act to make provision for regulating exhibitions by means
of cinematograph in the Punjab.
It is hereby enacted as follows:-
NOTE
Statement of Objects and Reasons: - (1) " The Cinematograph Act, 1918 (Central Act) which
applicable to this State has been repealed by the Central Government by the Cinematograph Act,
1952, which was passed at the last session of the Parliament. It received the assent of the President
on the 21st March, 1952. It will be brought into force from the 28th July, 1952.
______________________
*For statement of Objects and Reasons , see Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary, Dated the
22nd July, 1952, pages 659 -60; for proceedings in the Assembly, see Punjab Legislative Assembly
Debates, 1952, Volume II, Pages (30)8-(30)28.
2 Haryana [S. 1]
(2) The Cinematograph Act, 1918, is of mixed contents, dealing with two separate matters, viz (a)
examination and certification of films as suitable for public exhibition and (b) regulation of
cinemas including of l icensing. In the Seventh Schedule of the construction " sanctioning of
cinematograph films for exhibition" has been included in entry 60 of the Union List and 'Cinemas
subject to the provisions of entry 60 of list I' in entry 33 of the State list. Some of the section of the
cinematograph Act 1918 , therefore, concern the Central Government ; some the State Government
and others both Central and State Government . In the absence of a clear demarcation of the
respective provisions of the Act with which the Ce ntral and state Government are concerned,
various difficulties have been arising in the administration of the Act. The provisions of the
cinematograph Act 1918, have, therefore, been re -enacted by the Government of India, separating
those relating to exa mination and certification of films as suitable for public exhibition (A Union
subject) from those relating to " regulation of cinemas including their licensing " (a State subject).
The cinematograph Act, 1952, consists of four parts - Part I consisting of definition, Part IV dealing
with repeal and parts II and III relating respectively to (a) examination and certification of film as
suitable for public exhibition and (b) regulation of cinemas, including their licensing. Part II will
extend to the whole of India (except the state of Jammu and Kashmir) ; Part III will extend to Part C
state only. Accordingly Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, have
suggested that Part 'A' States. and part 'B' states should undertake legislation on the lines of part III
of the New Act.
(3) This Bill is Designed to give effect to the instructions of the Government of India. (Punjab
Gazette Extraordinary , dated the 22nd July, 1952.)
1. Short title, extent and commencement:-
(1) This Act may be called the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952
(2) It extends to the whole of the*( State of Haryana.)
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on 28 th of July, 1952*( in the principal territories and
on the 3rdApril, 1957, in the transferred territories.]
COMMENTRY
1. Purpose of the Act:- The Purpose of the Act is to regulate exhibition by means of Cinematograph
and the purpose is largely recreative or educational . New Ram B. State AIR 1955 Cal. 609.
The main object of statutory interference in the business of exhibition of Cinematograph, as
can be seen from the Central and Punja b Acts and the Rules is to safeguard the interests of health
and public safety. Any rules framed by the appropriate authorities for the attaining of above
mentioned or other ancillary objects of this case of legislation would be reasonable even if they
impose restrictions on the normal fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the
constitution to carry on any occupation trade or business. But a rule having no rational connection
with the objects of the Central and State Cinematograph Act but p rohibiting issue of a license to a
touring cinema owner on the
_______________________
*See Haryana Ada ptation of Laws order, 1968.
s.1] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 3
more ground that there is a permanent cinema house at that place cannot be viewed as reasonable
restriction. It is more so if the permanent cinema owner is in no way economically affected by the
issue of license to the touring cinema. Rasdeep Touring Talkies v. District Magistrate karnal, AIR
1967 Pb. 219
2. Validty of provisions: - Treatment of motion pictures on different footings from other foms of
art and expression is valid classification. The provision is not unconstitutional . AIR 1971 S.C. 481.
Rule 3 framed under the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) A ct, 1952 was held to be valid and it was
held that the rule cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination as permanent cinema
owner and touring cinema owners are two distinct classes, Rasdip Touring Talkies v. Distt.
Magistrate, AIR 1967 Pb. 219. However, it was held that this rule in so far as imposed unreasonable
restriction on the right of the petitioners to have a touring talkie at a place where permanent
cinema also existed was held to be bad.
3. Classifications as to seats: - The questions as t o whether the licensing authority can make
classes of cinema hall seats and prescribes the rates therefore was raise in State of Punjab v.
Deepak Theater L.P.A no. 913 of 1980 decided on 3rd day of April , 1981. it was held that the
licensing authority has got the power to do so. It was held that the power to regulate and licence a
trade, business or calling would enable the authorities to make classes of cinemas hall seats and to
prescribe the rates therefore. See also Gobind Ram. v State of U.P. AIR 19 61 All 600, wherein
somewhat similar question arose and validity of rules was upheld.
4. General principles of interpretation: - If two constructions are possible upon the language of
the statute, the court must choose the one which is consistant with good sense and fairness,
andeschew the other which makes its operation unduly oppressive, unjust or unreasonable, cr
which would lead to strange , inconsistant results or otherwise introduce an element of bewildering
uncertainty and practical inconvenience in the working of the statue . Dalip Kumar Sharma v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 133.
An interpretation which would re nder a provision nugatory is to be avoided . Charan Singh
v. Majo, AIR 1976 Pb. 310.
Simply because unjust results would ensue is no ground to refuse the relief or to give a
different interpretation. Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC. 331.
5.Intention of Legislature : - The primary duty of the of curts is to give effect to the intention of
the legislature as expressed in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in
aid to find that intention. Pritam singh v. state, AIR 1950 SC 169; 1950 SCR: 453. 1950 SC 437.
It is no doubt true that if on its true construction a statue leads to anomalous results, courts have no
option but no option but to given effect to it and leave
4 Haryana [Ss. 1]
it is the legislature to amend the law . But when on a construction of a statue two views are
possible, one which results in anomaly and the other not, it is the duty of the courts to adopt the one
which does not lead to anomaly and seek consolation in the thought that the the law bristles with
anomalies. Veluswami v. Raja Narain , ( 1955) Supp (1) SCR 623.
The expression of well known legal significance and connotations used by the legislature should be
interpreted in the sense in which they are norm aly understood . R.S. Bhatia v. state , AIR 1981 SC
1275 (July). it was futher observed in this case the same words used in the same expression should
be given same meaning.
The decision of other countries are not relevant when the language of he statute is clear. CIT
Bombayk v.Bar Council of India, AIR 1981 SC 1462 Aug.
6. Hardship cannot alter the meaning: - If certain meaning is clear on the face of a particular
provision , the question of hardship or inconvenience is irrelevant and these factors cannot be used
to give different meanings to the plain language. Commissioner of agricultural income Tax v.
keshav Chandra. AIR 1950 SC 65; 1950 SCR 435. The argument about the inconvenience and
hardship is dangerous one and is only admissible in construction w here the meaning of the statute
is obscure and the consequences of the provision may cause good deal of hardship to many persons.
But this is not a proper matter to influence the court unless in a doubtful case affording foothold on
balanced speculation as to the probable intention of the legislature . The proper forum for getting
the hardship removed is the legislature and not the courts. Morvi Bank v. Union, AIR 1965 SC 1954.
7. Interpretation defeating the object:- It is trite saying that the object of interpreting a statute is
to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it. An interpretation which would defeat the
object of the legislature is not to be allowed. Asia Industries v. Syrup Singh, AIR 1966 SC, 346.
Words in a statue which are cle ar and precise are to be given their natural manning. Nagapur
Corporation v . Its Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675: (1960) 2SCR 492. Limited interpretation is to be
placed in spite of generality of language where liberal interpretation on in the general sense w ould
be unreasonable or absurd or would defeat the object of the legislation. Shadadra S. light Rly. v.V
B.S Mills. 1960 (2) SCR 926.
8. Preamble not be used when words clear:- A preamble is a key to the interpretation of a statute
but is not ordinarily an independent enactment conferring rights or taking them away and cannot
restrict or widen the enacting part which is clear and unambiguous. The motive for legislation is
often reflected in the preamble but he remedy may extend beyond the of the evil inte nded to be
removed . R Venkat Swamy Naidu. v Nawasrem Naraindas , AIR 1966 SC 361.
9. Court Cannot usurp the functions of the legislature: - It is not open to the court to usurp the
faction of the legislature. Nor is to open to the courts to place an unna tural interpretation on the
language used by the legislature and impute to it an intention which cannot be inferred
S.1] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 5
form the language used by it, basing itself on ideas derived from other laws mangi Lal. v. Sugam
Chand , AIR 1965 SC 10 . Intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used in the
act. M.S.M Sharma v. Sri. Krishna Sinha AIR 1959 SC 395.
10. Referenced to existing laws.- It is legitimate to take into account exiting laws. and the manner
in which they were passed acted upon and enford This applies with equal force to Constitution as
well because Constitution itself continues in force all laws which were in existence at the date
when it came i nto being except those which are inconsistent with itself. State of Bomboy v united
Motors Ltd. 1953 SCR 1069 : 1953 SC 252.
it is legitimate to look at the state of law prevailing and which led to the legislation to see as to what
was the mischief at which the act was directed. Addl. I.T.C v. Muret Art cloth mfg. AIR 1980 SC 387.
11. Legislative intent how to be determined: - It is almost settled rule of construction that to
ascertain legislative intent all the constituent parts of a statute are to be ta ken together and each
word phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of general purpose and object of the Act
itself. The title and preamble whatever the value might be as aids for the construction of statue
undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of legislature and indicate the course and purpose
of the legislation itself. Popat lal Singh v. state of madras , 1953 SCR 677 , AIR 1953 SC 274,
Ashwani Kumar v. Arabinda B se. 1953 SCR1 : AIR 1952 SC 69: MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishan Sinha, (
1959) ( Supp) (1) SCR 806: AIR 1959 SC 395.
12. Grammatical and ordinary sense can be modified: - It is duty of the Courts to give effect to
the meanings of an Act when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say,
if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will gave effect to what common sense
would show was obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must
be rejected even if some words used in the same section and even in the same sentence, have to be
construed differently. Sharmrao v. District Magistrate, 1952 SCR 683 SCR : AIR 1952 SC 324. see
also Hindustan Aluminum Corporation v . State, A.I.R 1981 S.C 1659 (Sep.)
It is the duty of the court in construing statutes to give effect to the intention of the
legislature. Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration. AIR 1966 SC 87.
13. Duty of the Court:- The duty of the Court is to see that the purpose of the Act is carried out and
a construction which will defeat the purpose of the ac t or which will travel beyond it has to be
avoided. Bishamber Singh v. state of orissa, AIR 1955 SC 1939. The Court should try to harmonies
the conflicting provisions. Raj Krishan Bose v. Binod Kannngo, AIR 1954 SC 202. A construction
which is logical sh ould be placed upon a statute . Kalidas v. State of Bombay, 1955 SCR 887, AIR
1955 SC 62. Assessing Authority v. East India Cottan Mfg. Co, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1610 (Sep.)
Where a particular word has not been difined in the Act then it should be given its o rdinary
meaning. State of Mysore v. Sundram Motors, AIR 1980 SC 148.
6 Haryana [S. 1]
Where the dominant purpose of the act is to achieve not only speedy determination but a
determination with utmost depatch then the the provisions of the Act must be interpreted so as to
eliminate all possible avenues of delay or means of adopting dialatery tactics. V.C Shukla v. State ,
AIR 1980 SC 962.
14. Same meaning to be given to the same word:- The same word appearing in the same section
of the same Act or rules must be given the same meaning unless there is anything to indicate to the
contrary. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592. Intention should be primarily gathered
from the Act. Unless there is any ambiguity, surroun ding circumstances and constitutional
principles and practice are not to be examined. Where meaning of the words is clear it is
unnecessary to search for and select a particular meaning out of many given in dictionary. Mangoo
Singh v. Election Tribunal, 1957 SC 871 : 1958 SCR 418.
15. Four principles to be considered: -- For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in
general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) for things are to be
discerned and considered-
(i) What was the common law before the making of the Act.
(ii) What was the mischief and the defect for which the common law did not provide.
(iii) What remedy the Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the mischief.
(iv) The true reason of the remedy.
The duty of judges is always to make such construction as shall suffer subtle invetions and evasions
for continuance of the mischief and which will help to remove the defect for which the legislation
was made. It is not only legitimate but highly conven ient to refer both to the former Act and to the
ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise and to the later Act which provided the
remedy. Bengal Immunity Co.v State of Bihar, 1955 (2) SCR 603 ; AIR 1955 SC 661.
16. Ambiguity cannot be creat ed artificially:-- If there is ambiguity in the terms of the statute,
recourse must natural be had to the well established principles of construction but it is not
permissible first to create and artificial ambiguity and then try to resolve the ambiguity a nd resort
to some general or special principle of construction . I.T. Commr. v. Indo Bank, AIR 1959 SC 713.
The court cannot add words to a section unless the section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful
meaning. British India General Insurance v. Capt Itbar Singh , AIR 1959 SC 133.
17. Later Act when to be used to interpret an earlier: - Except as a parliamentary exposition,
subsequent Acts are not to be relied on as an aid to the construction of prior unambiguous Acts. A
later statute may not be referred to, to interpret the clear terms of an earlier Act, which the later
Act does not amend even though both Acts are to be construed as one, unless the later Act expressly
interpret the earlier Act, but if
S.1] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 7
the earlier Act is ambiguous, the later Act may throw light on it, as where a particular construction
of the earlier Act will render the later incorporated Act ineffectual . An Act of parliament does not
alter the law by merely, betraying an erroneous opinion of it . Nalanikani v. l,T Commissioner
Bombay , AIR 1967 SC 193 L (1966) SCJ 41. To the same effect are the observations made earlier by
the Supreme Court of India in Shiv Shankar Shukla v. A.D. Divekar, 1957 SCR 121 at p. 140.
18. Construction leading to absurdity and hardship to be avoided: - If a statute leads to
absurdity and hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it
which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure o f the sentence. Ram Parsad v.
Vijay Kumar, AIR 1967 SC 278. A construction which is more beneficial to persons in whose
interests the Act is passed and furthers the policy of the Act is to be preferred . Alembic Chemical
Works v. Workmen (1961) 3 SCR 276.
19. Interpretation defeating the object: - It is trite saying that the object of interpreting a statute
is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it . An interpretation which would defeat the
object of the legislature is not to be allowed. Asia Industries v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1966 SC 346.
Words in a statute which are clear and precise are to be given their natural meaning . Nagpur
Corporation v. its Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675: (1960) 2 SCR 492. Limited interpretation is to be
placed in spite of generality of language were liberal interpretation in the general sence would be
unreasonable or absured or would defeat the object of the legislation. Shaharda S. Rly, v.V B.S Mills,
1960 (2) SCR 926.
20. Pramble not to be used when words clea r:- A preamble is a key to the interpretation of a
statute but is not or ordinarily an independent enactment conferring rights or taking them away
and cannot restrict or widen the enacting part which is clear and unambiguous. The motive for
legislation is often reflected in the preamble but the remedy may extend beyond the cure of the evil
intended to be removed. R. Venkat Swamy Naidu v. Nawasram Naraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361.
21. Court cannot usurp the function of the legislature: - It is not open to the cou rt to usurp the
functions of the legislature . Nor is to open to the courts to place unnatural interpretation on the
language used by the legislature and impute to it an intention which cannot be inferred from the
language used by it, by basing itself o n ideas derived from other laws. Mangi Lal v. Sugam Chand ,
AIR 196 SC 101. Intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used in the Act.
M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishana Sinha , AIR 1959 SC 395.
22.Later Act when to be used to interpret an earlier. - Except as a parliamentary exposition ,
subsequent Acts are not to be relied on as aid to the construction of prior unambiguous Act. A later
statute may not be referred to , to interpret the clear terms of an ealier Act, which the later Act does
not amend even though both Acts are to be construed as one, unless the later Act expressly
interpret the earlier Act, but if the earlier Act is ambiguous, the later Act may throw light on it, as
where a particular construction of the earlier Act. will render
8 Haryana [S. 1]
the later incorporated act ineffectual. An Act of Parliament does not alter the law by merely
betraying an erroneous opinion of it . Nalnikant Mody v. I.T Commissioner Bombay, AIR 1967 SC
193; (1966) SCR 401. To the same effect the observations made earlier by the Supreme Court of
India in Shiv Shankar Shukla v. A.D Divekar , 1957 SCR 121 at p . 140.
23. Construction leading to absurdity and hardship to be avoided: - If a statute leads to
absurdity and hardship of injustice, presumably not intend, a construction may be per upon it
which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. Ram parsad v.
Vijay Kuamr , AIR 1967 SC 278 . A construction which is more beneficial to persons in whose
interests the act is passed and furthers the policy of the Act is to be preferred. Alembic Chemical
Works v. workmen (1961) 3 SCR 276.
24.Legislature not amending the interpretation given by courts: - Legislature inference is that
the i nterpretation is in accord with the intention of legislature where the language used in a
particular statutory provision is obscure and the court places upon that particular provision a
construction which is not interfered with or amended by the legislatu re. Ram Nand Prasad Naryan
Singh v. Kapul Deo Ranjee, AIR 1951 SC 155.
25.Court is not to lay down standared for legislature : -- The court is only concerned with the
interpretation of a statue and while doings so it should not lay down any standard whic h the
legislature is to follow. The court is only concerned to interpret the law and if it is valid to apply the
law as it find it and not to enter upon aa discussion as to what the law should be. Purshotam v. B.M.
Desai, AIR 1956, SC 20 ; 1955 (2) SCR 887.
26. Defect in phraseology, courts cannot remedy the defect: - The courts are not competent to
proceed upon the assumption that the legislature has committed mistakes. The court must
proceed on the footing that the phraseology intended what it has said. Even if there is some defect
in the phraseology the court cannot aid the legislature defective phrasing of an Act or add, amend
or by construction make up deficencies which are left in the Act. Even where there is casus omissus
it is for other than the courts to remedy the defect. nalinkhya v. Sham sunder, 1953 SCR 533; AIR
1953 SC 148.
The court cannot supply casusomissus ,except in the case of clear necessity and when the reasons
for it are found in the four corners of the statute self. At th e same time casus omissus should not be
readly inferred. Income. Tax vNational Taj Traders, AIR 1980 SC 487.
27. Interpretation of a leas deed: - Two rules must be remembered while interpreting deeds and
statutes. The first one is ; In drafting it is not enough to gain a degree of precision which a person
reading in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to attain if possible a degree of pr ecision
which a person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand. The second one is more important for
the third world countries. Statutory Construction so long as law is at the service of life cannot be
divorced from the social setting. This is welfare l egislature like the Rent Control Acts must be
interpreted in a third World perspective. Sant Ram. v. Rajinder Lal , AIR 1978 SC 1601.
Ss. 2-4] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 9
2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Cinematograph" includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of
pictures;
(b) "Government" means the Government of the *(State of Haryana);
(c) "Place" includes a house, building, tent and any description of transport, whether by sea, land or
air;
(d) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act.
COMMENTARY
1. Cinema:-Cinema is a abbreviated from of Cinematograph which in its ordinary significance
include a film exhibition theatre. AIR 1965 A.P 200.
2. Exhibition:- The word exhibition refers to display of pictures in places of public entertainment
for profits. A.G.v. Vitagaph Co. ltd, 1915 (1) Ch. 206
SECTION -3
3. Cinematograph exhibitions to be licensed:-
Save as otherwise provi ded in this Act, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a
cinematograph, elsewhere then in a place licensed under this Act or otherwise than in compliance
with any condition and restriction imposed by such license.
COMMENTARY
1. Provision is mand atory:- The provision contained in this section that no person shall give an
exhibition by means of cinematograph at any place other than a place licensed under this Act is
absolute and imperative. The provision are mandatory and a person cannot be heard do say later
on that he had no guilty mind and that even though he eas not having the necessary licence he may
not be punished. Net Ram v. State AIR 1957 Cal. 609.
2. Absence of renewal:- The mere fact that a person was a licen see in respect of talkie house or
the that he had applied for the renewal of the licence before its expiry is not valid deference to
prosecution initiated under the Act . Net Ram v. State AIR 1955 Cal. 609.
SECTION -4
4.Licensing authority:-The authority having power to grant licenses under this Act (hereinafter
referred to as the หlicensing authority'), shall be the District Magistrate;
Provided that the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute for the whole
or any part of the State, such other authority as it may specify therein to be the licensing authority
for the purposes of this Act.
COMMENTARY
1. Power of State Government.- Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 choose the expression
subject to the control of the state
____________________________________
*See Haryana Adapation of Laws Order, 1968.
10 Haryana [Ss. 4-5]
Government . This provision circumscribes the power of the licensing the power of the licensing
authority and lays down that the licensing authority is to exercise power subject to the control of
the State Government. The control of the State Government is in regard with the grant of licences.
R.N. Seshadri v. Distt. Magistrate, AIR 1952 Mad 120.
SECTION -5
5.Restrictions on power of licence authority:- (1) The licensing authority shall not grant a
license under this Act unless it is satisfied that-
(a) the rules made under this Act have been complied with , and
(b) adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which th e license is to be given
to provide for the safety of the persons attending exhibitions therein.
(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and to the control of the Government, the
licensing authority may grant licenses under this Act to suc h persons as it think fit, on such terms
and condition as it may determine.
*[Provided that it shall be deemed to be a condition of every licence whether granted before or after
the commencement of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 196 8, that if a
licensee fails, without sufficient cause, to give exhibition, by means of a cinematograph, for a period
of fifteen days in a month whether consecutively or otherwise, his licence shall be liable to
cancellation under clause(b) of sub-section(1) of section 8]
(3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority refusing to grant a license under
this Act may, within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the Government or to such officer as
the Government may specify in this be half and the Government or the officer, as the case may be,
may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit.
(4) The Government may, from time to time, issue directions to licensees generally or to any
licensee in particular for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films, so that
scientific, films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current
events, documentary films or indigenous films secure an adequate opportunity of being exhibited
and where any such directions have been issued those directions shall be deemed to be additional
conditions subject to which the license has been granted
COMMENTARY
1. Control:- The power of control of the State Government is comprehensive and extends over the
whole range of the power to grant licences. The word control has a very wide connotation . The
Statute does not in any way delimit the ambit of the controling power . AIR 1957 A.P. 513.
The word control is not ocnfined to mere rgualtion . The control contemplated includes
interference on the part of the State Government with the individual in a particular case by the
District Magistrate. It is more comprehensive and includes domination or command over an
inferior. Bharat Bhushan v. city Magistrate, AIR 1956 all 99.
Any thing anciliary to what has to be done by the licensing authority is also within the scope
of the control vested in the State Government AIR 1957 Mad. 684.
____________________________
*Inserted by Haryana Act 5 of 1968.
S. 5] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 11
Thus the State Government has the power to give directions to the licensing authority. These
directions can be with regard to the person or to the terms and conditions and restrictions. AIR
1957 A.P. 513.
The control contemplatd by section 5 is wide enough to empower the state Government to
issue appropriate instruction to the licensing authority. It is however not within the competence of
State Governement to issue executive instruction which i f these were issued as a statutory rule
would be beyond the rule making power. AIR 1955. A.P 123.
2. Control and issusnce of directions: - Thus if a rule cannot be framed then instructions cannot
be issued on the same subject. However, the state Government has the power to interface after the
District Magistrate has himself exercised his discretion. AIR 1956 All 99.
The power of the licensing authority to issue licences is subject to the control of the State
Government and the State has the power to direc t the licensing authority to grant a license to a
particular individual. the State Government may set aside the orders of the licensing authority and
issue and direction in this respect which it may consider fir or proper. AIR 1955 ALL 82.
The State Go vernment may issue directions at variance with their own prior orders when
such orders have not assumed the shape of statutory rules. AIR 1957 A.P 513.
3.Requirements as to building of a particular structure: - The provisions requiring a theatre to
be cons tructed in accordance with regulation made under the Act has to be complied with R.v
Hannery, 1891 (2) Q.B.709 . It was held that such provision would apply to building which were
errected or come into existence after the passing of the Act. London County council v. Hall of Arts.
1913 (110) LT. 28.
The requirement to keep gangways and passages is mandatory and its breach can be
punished . Putters v. watt . 1914 (84) LJ KB 394.
The refusal of the Corporation to sanction the plan on the ground that the adj oining streets
were narrow was quashed in Exparte Cambrige Picture Play House Ltd. 1922 (1) KB. 250.
The authorities are to grant licences on such terms and conditions and under such
restrictions as the authority may by respective licenses determine . S uch terms must be reasonable
and may be formulated generally subject to the right of each applicant to contend when applying
for licence that they should not be imposed in his case. A licence was issued subject to a condition
that no film should be exhibited to which objection was taken by any three of the licensing justices,
it was held that the condition was unreasonable and invalid . R. v. Burnley, 1916 (85) LJ KB . 1565.
In this case however the condition that children attending the school are to be e xcluded in case the
medical officer notifies the prevalence of any infectious disease was held to be valid.
where the licensing authority notifies that a particular films is not to be shown then a licensee or a
cinema owner has got no locus standi to com e to the court and challenge that the condition is
unreasonable. Ex-parte Stort 1916 ( 1, KB 7.)
4. Licensing authority and State Government are two distinct entities: - Under section 5(2) of
the Punjab Cinemas ( Regulation) Act, 1952 the licensing authority is to grant license subject to the
provisions of section 5(1) and subject the control of the government . It is true that the control
which the government exercises is very wide but this does not justify that the state Government can
completely oust and
12 Haryana [S. 5]
obliterate the licensing authority by usurping its functions. The legislature contemplates that the
licensing authority would be a distinct entity from government . This view to the was expressed in
State of Punjab v. Hari Krishan , AIR 1966. S.C 1081, The view to the contrary expressed by the
Rajasthan High Court in Vishan Takies v. State. ILR 1962 (12) Raj 44 and K. Ra jgiah v. Sultan
Mohidin & ors. AIR 1957 A.P 513 and Bharat Bhushan v. Cinema and City Magistrate, AIR 1956 All.
99 was over-ruled.
5.Appeal, who can file: - Section 5(3) provides for an appeal at the instance of the party which is
aggrieved by the rejectio n of its application for the grant of licence. No appeal is provided for
against as order granting the license. But in case it appears to the government that an application
has been granted erroneously or unfairlly it can exercise its control specfied un der section (5) and
set aside such an erroneous order. This view was expressed in State of Punjab v Hari Krishan , AIR
1966 S.C 1081.
6. Power of State Government to order that a licence may be issued: - State Government can
grant of a licence in specif ic case ILR 1962 ( Raj 44. It may however be mentioned that the view
expressed in this judgment o the Rajasthan was doubted in AIR 1966 S.C 1081.
7. Cancellation when change in ownership - Direction or condition was that the licence shall be
terminated for thwith if the licensee ceases to own or hold on lease or to manage the licenced
premises. The licence form prescribed these conditions . This condition was held to be valid in
ishar Dass and Bros. v. Distt. Magistrate, AIR 1972 All 83.
8. Notice before i ssuing direction - The State government is not bound to issue notices to the
parties before issuing directions . The direction are neither judicial nor quasi judicial. They are
purely administrative direction . Unless the statute requires there is no neces sity to give notice.
AIR 1955 All 99 . It may however be mentioned here that this may not be the correct position in law
now because the latest trend of the judicial decisions is that opportunity has to be given whenever
any civil right is sought to be i nterfered with. Thus in S.L. Kapuri v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136
even though the statute did not embody in itself the rules of natural justice the court held that it
was imperative to give hearing.
9.Instruction to restrict number of talkies - The instruct ions issued by the government to the
licensing authority to restrict the number of touring in places were there were permanent cinemas
in order to prevent unhealthy competition and to erasure public safety are not volatile of article 19
of the Constitution. AIR 1952 Mad. 528.
10. Direction to close cinema at a particular time - A direction was given that the cinema should
be closed at 12.3. A.M. and no show should be run beyond that hour. It was held that this direction
is not unreasonable. 1955 (21) Cuttack Law Times 468.
11. Compulsory exhibition :- An order relating to compulsory exhibition of approved films of
certain minimum length constitutes a serious encrcachment on the right of an exhibitor. 1955 (21)
Cuttack Law Times 468.
S. 5] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 13
12. Power of state government to assume jurisdiction of licensing authority: - The state
government is not justified in assuming jurisdiction which has been conferred on the licensing
authority under section 5 of the Punjab Cinemas ( Regulation ) Act, 1952. The scheme of the statute
is that when an application for licences is made it has to be considered by the licensing authority
and dealt with under section 5 of the Act. If therefore the state government requires all applications
for licences to be forwarded to it really converts itself to be the real authority itself. This is not
permissible because State Government has been given the right to hear an appeal against the order
of rejection of the applic ations for licence. This view was expressed in State of Pb. v. Hari Krishan ,
AIR 1966 SC 1081 affirming the view expressed by Punjab High Court in ILR 1961 (2) Pb. 831.
13 Authority which is to grant licences acting on the direction of higher authorities:- In a case
arising under the Punjab excise Act, it was held that if any authority has been vested with the power
to grant a liecence it is that authority which must exercise that power and if power is exercised by
some other authority , the exercise of t hat power would be showy void. Kans Raj v. Dy. E.T.O., AIR
1965 Pb. 284 . The Divsion Bench of the High Court placed reliance on the decision given by the
Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Goverdhan Dass , AIR 1952 SC 16.
It may be mentioned here that the decision given in Hari Krishan Shasrma v. Pb. State ILR 1961 (2)
Pb. 831 was also relied upon. This decision in Hari Krishan Sharma case has since been approved
by the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 1081. see also Novelty Talkies. v. Pb. State, ILR 1960 (2) Pb.
276 and Pb. State v. Mehar Chand , AIR 1959 Pb. 222.
In cases where a licence is granted under the instructions of the State Government , it mattaer very
little as to who signed the order or the licence. The authority granting the licenc e in such a case is
really the State Government and the function of the licensing authority becomes merely an
ministerial function. AIR 1955 All. 82.
14. Notice before grant of licence:- There is no statutory provision for a notice before the grant of
a licence to a new entrant. There is also no reason that the state Government or the District
Magistrate can not exercise the power to grant licence to a new entrant without notice to the other
licencees. AIR 1957 A.P. 513.
15. Order is executive: - The order of the Government granting a licence is executive. It is not
incumbent on the State Government to afford hearing to persons who want licences for running
cinema houses. AIR 1955 ALL 82.
16. Locus standi: - If a person has no right to obtain a licence in his favour it is not for him to
question whether the licence granted to an another person is valid or invalid. AIR 1956 ALL 99. It
may however be mentioned here that where permission was granted to effect a cinema in violation
of the building rules it was held that the residents can compel the authorities to see that building is
constructed in accordance with rules. K.R Shenoi v. Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2177.
17. Requirement to show cultural film :- While granting a licence a condition impos ed was that
the licensee shall exhibit an approved film.
14 Haryana [S. 5]
and that only such films produced in India as are certified would be exhibited. It was held that the
requirement was that the cultural films should have been produced in India was contemplated. AIR
1963 SC 408.
18. Writ and appeal: - During the pendency o f an appeal writ petition is maintainable. AIR 1967
Goa. 158 . It may however be mentioned that this may not be good law in view of AIR 1970. SC
1302 where an appeal was filed ogainst the order of District Magistrate refusing to issue licence to
run cinem a. It was held that while disposing appeal the authorities are bound to comply with
provisions of natural justice. AIR 1970 SC 1302 See also AIR 1971 Goa. 27.
19. Amplifiers out side cinema house.: - The operators of cinema houses used sound amplifiers
outside the cinema houses. It was held that the proper authority to punish them was the District
Magistrate and not eh Municipal authority. 1978 Crl. L. J. 1467
20. Touring talkies and permanent cinemas: - The act is meant for regulating exhibition by
means of cinematograph. Permanent cinema owners and touring cinema owners are two distinct
classes and in regulating them there can be no discrimination. A touring cinema owner cannot claim
equality in all respects with a permanent cinema owner. However, proh ibiting a touring cinema on
the ground that there is a permanent cinema in the place is unreasonable. AIR 1967 Pb. 219.
21. Censorship:- Censorship is justified under the constitution. AIR 1971 SC 481.
22. Partition between owners: - There was a suit for partition against a licensee by other co -
owners of land on which cinema house was built by the licensee . This suit was decreed. The term
of the licence was that in case the licensee ceases to own or hold on lease or to manage the cinema
then the licence shall be terminated. It was held that licensee could not be said to have ceased to
own the site till such time as partition by metes and bounds has been effected. AIR 1975 All. 456.
23. No objection certificate: - A person who has obtained a no objecti on certificate for locating
either a permanent or touring cinema in respect of a particular site need not make another
application for taking no objection certificate for the same site during the pendency of the first no
objection certificate . It is on ly when a no objection certificate expires either by efflux of time or
by surrender of the same to the concerned authority that an application is to be filed for the grant of
no objection certificate of the same site 1975 (2) Mad L.J. 367.
24.Reasonablesnes of conditions: - A licence was granted subject to the condition that children
under 14 years of age shall not be allowed to enter into or be in the licenced premises after 9 P.M
unless accompanied by parent or guardian. The further condition attache d was that no child under
the age of 10 years shall be permitted in the premises under any
Ss. 5-6] The Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 15
circumstances after 9 P.M It was held that thExcerpt shown. Open the full act in Lexace.