Civil Appeal Nos 54 to 73A of 1985 etc
From the Judgment and order dated 9101984 of the Karnataka High Court in WP Nos
16170 16171 16172 16173 13198 15052 16283 16285 86 16331 16334 16335 16597 16598 17116 17612 of 1981 39414 of 1982 17183 of 1981 42082 of 1982 3833 of 1983 and 15053 of 1981 AK Sen Padmanabha Mahle Miss CK Sucharita NDB Raju M Rangaswamy KR Nagaraja B Krishna Prasad Miss Malini Poduval and RB Datar for the Appellants
BRL Iyenger M Veerappa and Navin Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
These appeals and writ petitions involve two questions of law i whether Rule 41 A of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules framed by the State Government under Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 Karnataka Act 23 of 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Act has been made for purposes of the Act and ii whether Rule 41 A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants  right to 516 carry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 191g of the Constitution
The appellantspetitioners hold licences for exhibiting cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act and the Rules in Form prescribed by the Rules
The Rules and conditions contained in the Licence Form F do not prescribe any restriction on the number of shows of films which a licensee can exhibit in his theatre
Condition No 11 of the licence however provides that No cinematograph exhibition shall continue after such time not later than 100 am Normally the cinema owners were holding four shows but later on they increased it to five shows in a day starting from 10 am to 12 noon 12 noon to 3 pm 3 pm to 6 pm 6 pm to 9 pm 9 pm to 12 am
Thus the cinematograph films were being exhibited continuously from 10 am to mid night which caused a number of problems
The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 19 of the Act framed Rule 41 A directing that no licensee shall exhibit more than four cinematograph shows in a day
Rule 4 1 A is as under 41 A Number of shows permissible in a day No licensee shall exhibit more than four cinematograph shows in a day
 In pursuance of Rule 41 A the appellants were directed to exhibit cinematograph films for four shows only in a day
The appellants challenged validity of the aforesaid rule placing restriction on their right to exhibit cinematograph films before the High Court of Karnataka by means of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
The appellants contended before the High Court that the restriction imposed by Rule 41 A on the licensees requiring them not to exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond the rule making power as the Rule did not carry out the purposes of the Act
It was further contended that the Rule placed unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right to carry on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films
The respondent State submitted before the High Court that the State Government realised that on account of exhibition of five shows in a day in a cinema theatre it was not possible for the licensees to keep the theatres hygienically clean and reports were received that for want of time the licensees were not exhibiting approved films and slides required under the provisions of the Act
The State Government found that exhibition of five shows in a day was not conducive to the health of the cine goers and therefore it framed Rule 41 A limiting the shows
It was contended that the rule was 517 intended for the regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films in the licensed premises and was within the scope and purposes of the Act
It was further pleaded before the High Court that the impugned Rule 41 A was not violative of Article 19 of the Constitution as it placed a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public as contemplated by Article 196 of the Constitution
A Division Bench of the High Court heard the parties at length but there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Bench of the High Court
KS Puttaswamy J held that the impugned rule was ultra vires as it was beyond the rule making power of the Government under Section 19 of the Act
He further held that the rule placed unreasonable restrictions on the appellants  right to carry on their business guaranteed to them under Article 191g of the Constitution
The learned Judge held that the restriction placed by the Rule 41 A was neither in the interests of the general public nor it was reasonable
Narayan Rai Kudoor J in a separate judgment upheld the validity of the Rule holding that the impugned Rule carried out the purposes of the Act namely the regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films and the restriction placed by it was reasonable and in the interests of the general public
Since there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges the matter was placed before M Rama Jois J who agreed with the opinion expressed by NR Kudoor J Rama Jois J held that the State Government had power to frame Rule 41 A under Section 19 of the Act and the Rule did not place any unreasonable restriction on the appellants  right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films
The learned Judge ruled that the impugned Rule was not ultra vires the Act and it did not violate appellants  fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution
In view of the majority opinion all the writ petitions were dismissed
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants have challenged the correctness of the High Court Judgment in these appeals
Some of the aggrieved cinema owners have also filed writ petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging validity of Rule 41 A
The appeals and writ petitions raise common questions of law and they are being disposed of by a common order
Mr AK Sen learned counsel for the appellantspetitioners contended that the provisions of the Act do not confer any power on the State Government to regulate the number of shows and the restrictions imposed by the impugned Rule 41 A limiting the number of shows to four did not fall within the purview of Section 19 of the Act
518 He further urged that the restriction placed by Rule 41 A was unreasonable and violative of appellants fundamental right to carry on their business under Article 191g of the Constitution
According to the learned counsel the restriction placed by the Rule was unreasonable because the mischief it sought to meet by placing the restriction was not established and its impact was excessive which caused undue hardship to the cinema owners as by the reduction of the number of shows from 5 to 4 there was corresponding reduction in the income of the cinema owners
Shri BRL Iyengar learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that the purpose of the Act was to regulate exhibition of cinematograph films in licensed premises and the power of regulation of exhibition of cinematograph films was wide enough embracing the power to limit the number of shows
He referred to Sections 14 and 192d in support of his submission that the impugned rule 41 A carried out the purposes of the Act
The learned counsel further urged that the restriction placed by the impugned Rule was reasonable and made in the public interest and there was no violation of appellants right guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution
The question whether Rule 41 A is validly framed to carry out the purposes of the Act can be determined on the analysis of the provisions of the Act
The declared will of the legislature and the policy and purpose of the Act are discernable from the title preamble and the express provisions of the Act
The legislative will is declared by the Preamble of the Act which seeks to deal with the subject of enactment
Generally preamble to an Act briefly indicates the object of the legislation
It may not be exhaustive but still it discloses the primary purpose of the legislation
If the express provisions of the Act are plain and unambiguous it is always advisable to find out the purpose of the legislation from those provisions but if the provisions are ambiguous and the courts face the difficulty in deducing the purpose of the Act from the express provisions of the Act it is permissible to refer to the title and preamble of the Act to find out the legislative object and the purpose of the Act
In the instant case the title of the Act is The Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act 1964 and its preamble declares that it is An Act to provide for regulating exhibition by means of cinematographs and the licensing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited in the State of Karnataka
 It further provides that whereas it is expedient to provide for regulating exhibition by means of cinematograph and the licensing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited in the State of Karnataka and for other allied matters the Act is being enacted
The title of the Act and the preamble clearly indicate that the main purpose of the Act is to 519 regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films in places in respect of which a licence for that purpose may be issued
The extent of control and regulation is evidenced by the provisions of the Act
Section 4 of the Act provides that no person shall exhibit cinematograph films in a place except in accordance with the licence issued under the Act
Section 5 provides for making of application in writing to the licensing authority for the grant of licence
Section 6 requires the licensing authority to consider matters specified therein in granting or refusing a licence with special reference to the interest of the public generally
Section 7 provides for limiting the number of places that can be licensed in any area
Section 8 provides that the licensing authority shall not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the rules made under the Act have been substantially complied with and adequate precautions have been taken in the place in respect of which the licence is to be granted providing for the safety convenience and comfort of the persons attending exhibitions therein
Section 7 confers power on the licensing authority to limit the number of places that can be licensed in an area
Section 10 provides for appeal against the decision under Sections 5 and 9
Section 11 provides for regulating the construction or reconstruction of a building for the use of exhibition of cinematograph films after obtaining the permission of the licensing authority
Section 12 confers power on the State Government to issue directions from time to time to any licensee to exhibit a such film or class of films having scientific or educational value b films dealing with news and current events and c documentary films indigenous films or such other films having special value to the public
Subsection 2 further provides that any directions issued by the State Government under Section 1 shall be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions subject to which the licence has been granted
Section 13 confers power on the licensing authority to issue directions to any licensee to exhibit in each show such slides of public interest as may be supplied by that authority
Section 14 confers power on the State Government to issue orders and directions of general character in respect of matters relating to licence subject to the provisions of the Pact and Rules to licensing authorities such orders and directions for the exhibition of cinematograph films and every licensing authority is bound to give effect to such orders and directions
Section 15 confers power on the State Government or the licensing authority to suspend exhibition of films if it is of opinion that any film which is being or is about to be publicly exhibited is likely to cause a breach of the peace
Section 16 provides for penalties and Section 17 confers power to revoke or suspend a licence
Section 18 confers power on the State Government to call for and revise orders passed by the licensing 520 authority
Section 19 confers power on the State Government to make rules after previous publication to carry out the purposes of the Act
The relevant provisions of Section 19 are as under 19
Powers to make rules I The State Government may by notification after publication make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act
2 In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for a the particulars to be given in an application for a licence and the terms conditions and restrictions subject to which a licence may be granted under this Act and the fees to be paid in respect of such licence       
d the regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing public safety e regulating the means of entrance and exit at places licensed under this Act and providing for prevention of disturbance there at 3 Subject to any modification made Section 22 every rule made under this Act shall have effect as if enacted in this Act
 Section 22 provides for placing the rules before each House of the State Legislature which has power to modify amend or annul the same
The aforesaid provisions of the Act seek to regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films in a licensed premises
The ultimate purpose of these provisions is to ensure safety and convenience of the general public visiting the licensed premises for witnessing the cinematograph films exhibited therein
Section 19 of the Act confers power on the State Government to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act
Sub section 2 of Section 19 requires the State Government to frame rules in respect of the matters specified in clauses a to h
While Section 191 confers general power on the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act sub section 2 specifies particular matters in respect of which rules may be made
The power conferred under subsection 2 is not exhaustive instead it is illustrative and it does not restrict or affect the general power of the State Government under 521 sub section  1 to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act
A The power conferred by Section 191 contemplates the framing of any rule which may have bearing on the regulation of exhibition of cinematograph films
The rule so made must be related to the purposes of the Act
The preamble and the provisions of the Act provide for the regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films which is the primary purpose of the Act
Under Section 191 the Legislature has conferred wide powers on the State Government to make rules embracing all the legitimate activities connected with the exhibition of cinematograph films which include rules for incidental matters like period of show admission to the cinema hall interval between two shows including the number of shows which a licensee may hold in a day
No person has right to exhibit cinematograph films in a place except under a licence in accordance with its conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence
The State Government has general power to issue directions to any licensee or licensees under Section 12 with regard to the exhibition of films
Section 14 further confers powers on the State Government to issue orders and directions of general character which it may consider necessary in respect of any matter relating to the exhibition of the cinematograph films
Such directions issued by the State Government are binding on the licensee
These directions may be in the form of rules or instructions directing the licensee to limit the number of shows if the State Government considers it necessary to do so in the public interest
The Act confers wide powers on the State Government for the regulation of the exhibition of the cinematograph films which includes power to regulate hours during which cinematorgraph films may be exhibited the seating arrangements for the members of the public and any other allied matters pertaining to public safety health sanitation anl incidental matters
Rule 41 A which limits the number of shows in a day regulates the exhibition of the cinematograph films and it carries out the purposes of the Act
It is therefore referable to the State Government s general power under Section 191 of the Act
Rule 41 A is further referable to clauses a and d of Section 192 of the Act
Clause a confers power on the State Government to frame rules prescribing terms conditions and restrictions subject to which a licence may be granted in exercise of that power
The State Government may lay down conditions and impose restrictions prescribing hours during which films may be exhibited and also the number of shows in the licensed premises
Similarly clause d confers power on the State Government to frame rules regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films for the purpose of securing public safety
Any rule regulating the exhibition of the cinematograph films if reasonably connected with public safety would H 522 be justified under the aforesaid provision
Rule 11 A adds a condition to the licence that exhibition of films will be limited to four shows in a day
No licensee can claim to have unrestricted right to exhibit cinematorgraph films for all the 24 hours of the day
Such a claim would obviously be against public interest
Rights to exhibit cinematograph films is regulated by the provisions of the Act in the interest of the general public
The restriction to limit the number of shows to four in a day placed by Rule 4 I A is regulatory in nature which clearly carries out the purposes of the Act
The provisions of the Act have laid down the policy tor regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films in the licensed premises and also for regulating the construction of building the auditorium galleries balconies projection rooms seating accommodation and other allied matters related to public health and safety etc
and all other matters related to exhibition of films
The Act does not regulate exhibition of films only
Instead it provides for regulation of all other allied matters which are incidental or necessary to the exhibition of cinematograph film in a licensed premises
Necessity to provide for incidental matters to facilitate successful operation of exhibition of cinematograph film may arise from time to time having regard to the prevailing situation and changing circumstances
The legislature has therefore conferred general power on the State Government to frame rules regulating the incidental matters also
The Rules contain provisions regulating construction of building electric installation galleries balconies fire safety and other allied matters
Rule 49 and 50 regulate seating accommodation inside the hall or the auditorium requiring the licensee to make provision for entrance exit isles and placement of seats with further provision that there would be an exit after every sixth row of seats
Rule 50 requires the licensee to provide for passages corridors and their use and ventilation
Rule 54 provides for water closets and urinals and water facilities
Rule 55 provides for regulation of ticket booths reservation of seats and other incidental matters so that there may not be over crowding near the ticket booths
Rules 77 to 83 contained in Chapter X of the Rules provide for maintenance of cleanliness and prevention of over crowding in the C cinema hall
lt is not necessary to refer to the entire set of Rules regulating matters incidental to the exhibition of cinematograph films
Validity of none of these Rules has been challenged by the appellants petitioners although they place a number of restrictions of their right of exhibiting cinematograph films
The restrictions placed by the Rule 41 A is similar to the restrictions already placed on their right to exhibit cinematograph films
It is incidental to the general power of 523 regulating the exhibition Of cinematograph films and it is connected with the regulation of exhibition of cinematorgraph films
The question arises whether Rule 4 l A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants  right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 191g of the Constitution
The appellantspetitioners have not challenged the validity of the Act
Therefore they have no unrestricted right to exhibit cinematograph films
They are carrying on the business under a licence containing the terms and conditions prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder
The licence issued under Form contains a number of terms and conditions which a licensee is required to comply with including condition No 11 which provides that no exhibition of cinematograph film shall continue after 100 am Rule 41 A adds one more condition to it requiring the licensee not to exhibit more than four shows in a day
Article 191g guarantees freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business
The freedom so guaranteed is not absolute
It is subject to clause 6 of Article 19 which permits imposition of reasonable restrictions by law if it is necessary in the interest of the general public
Any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 191g would be valid if it is in the interest of the general public
Restrictions occuring in Article 196 may in certain circumstances extend to total prohibition as held by this Court in Narender Kumar vs Union of India  A law placing restrictions on the citizens  right to do business must satisfy two conditions set out in clause 6 of Article 19 firstly the restrictions imposed by the law must be reasonable and secondly the restrictions must be in the interests of the general public
If these two tests are satisfied the law placing restriction on the citizens  right guaranteed under Article 19 must be upheld
While considering the validity of Rule 41 A it is necessary to ascertain whether the restrictions placed by the said rule are reasonable and the same are in the interests of the general public
In its return the State Government has stated that a number of complaints had been received by the State Government against the licensees exhibiting five shows in a day
These complaints disclosed that licensees had not been exhibiting approved films and slides as directed by the authorities under Sections 12 and 13 for want of time as the licensees were interested in exhibiting the main film within the short period at their disposal for completing each show
On receipt of reports from various authorities the State Government found that the licensees were not exhibiting the approved films and slides as required 524 by the existing Rules and directions issued from time to time
It was also brought to its notice that
the holding of continuous five shows from 10 am caused great inconvenience to the incoming and outgoing cine goers and endangered public satety
After the end of one show the next show followed shortly within 15 minutes and on account of shortage of time in between the two shows there was little time left for cleaning the cinema halls and there was also rush by the cine goers to occupy the seats
The licensees generally started exhibiting approved films and slides before the cine goers could occupy their seats with the result they could not have the benefit of the same
The reports further disclosed that the absence of interval between the shows resulted in denial of fresh air ventilation and cleanliness in the cinema halls
The State Government was satisfied that these maladies had primarily arisen on account of five shows being shown in a day
It accordingly published the draft rule proposing to place the limit of four shows in a day and invited objections
A number of objections were filed before the State Government to the proposed rule by the cinema exhibitors and members of public
In their objections the exhibitors stated that five shows did not cause any inconvenience to the public and the restrictions proposed to be placed were not in the interests of the general public representations were made by the members of the public submitted that continuance of five shows one after the other from 10 am
On a day to 1 am Of the next day were resulting in a heavy rush at theatres between any two shows as a result of which entering into and coming out of the theatres had become highly inconvenient and hazardous
b stampede giving room for pick pocketing c lack of adequate time to clean the auditorium and lavatories resulting in unhygienic conditions d lack of time for exchange of fresh air to foul air e commencement of show even before cine goers can enter the auditorium and take their seats
fl not exhibiting approved films news reels etc
for want of time g switching of air conditioners coolers fans exhaust fans to save electricity causing lot of discomfort and h creating problems of conveyance and traffic jam over loading of buses etc
After considering the objections the State Government was satisfied that the restriction as proposed placing the limit of four shows in a day was necessary in the interests of the general public
The State Government thereupon promulgated Rule 41 A placing the limit of four shows
The material placed before the State Government has been placed before the Court also
It clearly demonstrates the necessity for curtailing the holding of five shows to four shows to remove the public grievance
The representation filed on behalf of the public high lighted the hazards to the public safety and inconvenience caused to the members of the public visiting the cinema halls for entertainment
525 Rule 41 A was framed to meet the public need and to secure public safety by placing minimum possible restrictions on the licensees
Mr Sen appearing for the appellantspetitioners urged that Rule 4 I A was neither necessary nor reasonable as the purpose for which the Rule 4 I A was framed could have been achieved if the relevant authorities carried out their duties in making inspections and securing the compliance of the existing Rules
He urged that the impugned Rule does not prescribe the duration of four shows or the intervals between them and each of one of the reasons set out by the State to justify the impugned Rules could be fully achieved by the enforcement of the existing Rules
We find no merit in these submissions
Indisputably the licensees had only 15 hours in a day for the exhibition of films as condition number l l of the licence prohibits exhibition of films beyond I am
Ordinarily no show of cinema takes place earlier to 10 am
If five shows are permitted within a span of 15 hours commencing from 10 am Of a day to I am
Of the next day it would be impossible to find reasonable time to comply with the requirement of cleanliness and exhibition approved films and slides
The appellants petitioners  I own case is that one show of cinematograph film consumes two to two and a half hours  time
They further admit that approved documentary films and slides are exhibited for about ten minutes and in addition to that the licensees exhibit slides and commercial shots for about ten minutes and there is an interval of ten minutes in the middle of each show
It is further admitted that on the conclusion of one show there was interval of fifteen minutes before the commencement of the next show
Thus according to the appellantspetitioners own case one show takes about three hours an i if fifteen minutes interval between one show and other is credited the total period of time required for five shows would come to sixteen hours
The appellantspetitioners have been commencing their first show at l am and they assert that they have been completing five shows before I am the next day in accordance with the conditions of the licence
The licensees had fifteen hours at their disposal for holding five shows from 10 am to I am the next day but in actual practice they require at least sixteen hours minimum time for holding five shows
lt was therefore physically impossible to comply with the Rules and the licensees were bound to rush through to complete five shows by I am
These facts are eloquent enough to demonstrate that in holding five shows the licensees could not exhibit approved documentaries and slides and adequate measures could not be taken to ensure public safety and health
If five shows are held continuously from 10 am to l am the next day with an interval of fifteen minutes between one show and the other there would be acute H 526 shortage of time for exhibiting approved films and slides and the licensee would certainly be in hurry to exhibit the main film
In fifteen minutes interval it was not possible to get the hall cleaned or to allow fresh air set in as during that period cine goers would rush in to take their seats for witnessing the next show
If your shows are held in a day there will be no shortage of time and the licensees would have sufficient time to comply with the various statutory obligations as prescribed by the Act and Rules to ensure public safety health and convenience
In this view we have no doubt in our mind that the existing Rules could not meet the situation and the State Government was justified in framing Rule 41 A which serves public interest
As regards the grievance that the State Government has not prescribed any time gap between the shows it has been asserted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the Government intended to issue further detailed directions regulating the time gap between the shows and also for curtailment of noon show or the mid night show but before these directions could be issued the validity of Rule 41 A was challenged and no further action could be taken in the matter
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government stated before us that further instructions in the matter would be issued by the State Government
Having regard to the facts and circumstances as discussed earlier we have no doubt in our mind that the restriction placed by Rule 41 A placing limit on the appellants petitioners  right to exhibit cinematograph films to four shows is in the public interest
The appellants petitioners  contention that restriction under Rule 41 A is unreasonable is founded on the premise that Rule 41 A is not regulatory in nature instead it totally prohibits exhibition of cinematograph films for one show and its impact is excessive as it reduces appellants petitioners  income to the extent of one fifth
The appellantspetitioners have no unrestricted fundamental right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films
Their right to carry on business is regulated by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder
These provisions are necessary to ensure public safety public health and other allied matters
As already discussed Rule 41 A has placed limit on the number of shows which a licensee can hold in a day
The Rule does not prohibit exhibition of cinematograph films instead it regulates it by providing that instead of five shows only four shows should be exhibited in a day
In Narender Kumar vs Union of India this Court held that a law made in the public interest prohibiting a business would be valid as the prohibition  is only a kind of restriction 
The expression restriction includes prohibition also
Rule 41 A however does not take away the licensees  right to carry on 527 business of exhibiting cinematograph films
It merely regulates it
No rule or law can be declared to be unreasonable merely because there is reduction in the income of a citizen on account of the regulation of the business
In our opinion Rule 41 A does not place any unreasonable restriction on the appellants petitioners  fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 19 lg of the Constitution
Learned counsel for the appellantspetitioners place reliance on a decision on the Mysore High Court in Shelvarajen vs State of Mysore
 1963  I Mysore Law Journal 28 in support of his contention that Rule 41 A does not regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films instead it is prohibitory in nature and the restriction so placed is not in the interests of the general public
Puttaswamy J also relied upon on the aforesaid decision of the Mysore High Court in upholding the appellants  contention
In Shelvarajen vs State of Mysore the petitioner was exhibitor of travelling cinema show
His application for renewal of licence for a further period of four months had been rejected by the licensing authority on the ground that under Rule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinemas Rules 1953 framed under the Hyderabad Cinemas Regulation Act 1952 no licence for a travelling cinema show could be issued more than once during the same year for the same place
The petitioner therein challenged the validity of Rule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinema Rules 1953 on the ground that the Rule did not carry into effect the provisions of the Act and also on the ground that the Rule violated fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 Ig of the Constitution
The High Court struck down Rule 67 on the ground of it being made in excess of statutory power conferred on the State Government
The High Court held that the Act contained no prohibition against making of an application for licence more than once and it did not confer power for refusing to entertain of considering the application merely on the ground that during the same year the applicant had been once granted licence for that purpose
We do not agree with the view taken by the Bench in that case
as in our opinion Rule 67 regulated the grant of licence in respect of travelling cinemas
We do not consider it necessary to pursue the matter further as in the instant case Rule 41 A carries out the purposes of the Act in regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films in licensed premises
In Vishnu Talkies vs State of Bihar AIR 1975 Patna 
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court considered the validity of Condition 8 B of the licence which required a licensee to hold only four shows in a day and it further directed that no other show in any circumstances without obtaining the prior permission of the licensing authority would be 528 allowed
The validity of condition No 8 B was challenged on the ground that it was excessive and beyond the purview on the provisions of the Act and that it placed unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners therein to carry on their business
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court after analysing the provisions of the Bihar Cinema Regulation Act held that the condition imposed in the licence was sustainable in view of Section 52 of the Bihar Act
Section 52 of the Bihar Act conferred power on the licensing authority to grant licence under the Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restriction as it may determine
Condition No 8 B was prescribed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section S2 of the Bihar Act
I he Bench held that the restriction placed was in the public interest which was reasonable and therefore it was saved by Article 196 of the Constitution
We are in agreement with the view taken by the Patna High Court
In DKV Prasad Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh
AIR 1984 AP 75 validity of Rule 123 of Andhra Pradesh Cinemas regulation Rules 1970 fixing maximum rate of admission to different classes in a cinema hall for witnessing the cinematograph films was challenged on the ground that the rule was beyond the purview of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas Regulation Act 1955 and that it placed unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners therein in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected both the contentions
The Court held that since the purpose of Andhra Pradesh Cinemas Regulation Act was to regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films the State Government could frame rules to carry out those purposes
The Court observed that the power to regulate includes the power to restrain which embraces limitations and restrictions on all incidental matters connected with the right to trade or business under the existing licence
Rule 123 regulated entry to different classes to the cinema hall and it was within the rule making power of the State Government to frame such rule
The court further held that fixing limit of rate of admission was an absolute necessity in the interest of the general public and the restriction so placed was reasonable and in public interest
On these findings the court upheld the validity of the rule
We are in agreement with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
In the result we are of the opinion that Rule 41 A is intra vires the Act as it carries out the purposes of the Act and it does not place 529 any unreasonable restriction in violation of Article 191g of the A Constitution
We are in agreement with the majority opinion of the High Court
Accordingly the appeal as well as the writ petitions are dismissed with costs
section L Appeals  Petitions dismissed


Summary:
 Sectlon 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act 1926 empowers courts to pass a sentence of detention in a Borstal institution in the case of male persons less than twenty one years of age convicted of an offence in lieu of transportation or rigorous imprisonment
Section 24ia of the Act which defines offence  takes in offences other than an offence punishable with death
In his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner who has been convicted for the offence of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life claimed benefit of the Punjab Borstal Act relying on Hava Singh vs State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 2001
The State contested his claim Dismissing the writ petition  HELD l l The Punjab Borstal Act does not have application to an offence punishable under section 302 IPC561F G 12 What is excepted in the definition of offence  in section 24ia of the Act is an offence which is punishable with death
One of the punishments under section 302 IPC for the offence of murder is death and
therefore the offence of murder would be covered with section 24ia of the Act and to such a conviction the Punjab Borstal Act would have no application
560F G 13 The petitioner is therefore not entitled to the benefit of the Punjab Borstal Act as he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC for which the sentence of death is prescribed as an alternate
561G 557 14 In Hava Singh s case the definition of offence was not placed for consideration before the court and therefore the conclusion which has been reached is not correct
561F Emperor vs Mt Janki  Anr AIR 1932 Nag 130 King Emperor vs Nga San Htwa  Ors AIR 1927 Rangoon 205 Chetti vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1959 MP 291 Emperor vs Bahawati AIR 1928 Lahore 920 State vs Sheo Shankar AIR 1956 All 326 Public Prosecutor of Madras vs Paneswar Rao AIR 1946 Mad 178 Sarkar vs Jalam Singh AIR 1950 Raj
28 and Narauji Premji vs Emperor AIR 1928 Bom
referred to
Hava Singh vs State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 2001 overruled