IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1227 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS. LEELA DAVIS MANAGING PARTNER, ZEENATH THEATRE ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFIARS DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY REP BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA 4. ALUVA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REP BY ITS CHAIR PERSON, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 & R4 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 1248 OF 2010 & 1314 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.1227 (C), 1248 (E) & 1314 (L) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issues raised in these writ petitions are identical, and therefore, these cases were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For sake of convenience, I shall refer to the facts as pleaded in WP(C) No.1227/2010. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that although by Ext.P1, they sought revision of rates in respect of all classes of seats in their theatres, by Ext.P7, the Municipality allowed revision by Rs.5/- in respect of balcony circle alone, and ordered that the existing rates be retained in respect of all other classes of seats. It is aggrieved by this order, these writ petitions are filed. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is mainly that it is the absolute freedom of the theatre owners to revise and fix the rates. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on Ext.P2 Government Order dated 03/09/1992 WP(C) Nos.1227, 1248 & 1314 / 2010 -2- and Ext.P4 judgment of this Court in O.P.No.7196/1996 in support of his contention. 5. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality referred to me the provisions of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). 6. In so far as the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, Section 3 of the Act, provides that save as otherwise provided in the Act, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under this Act or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Rule 14 of the Rules provides for issue of licence, and Form E prescribes the format in which licence for exhibition of cinematograph shows is to be issued, and special condition No.(3) contained in Form E reads as under:- “(3). The maximum rates of payment for admission to the different classes in the licensed premises shall be as indicated below and these rates shall not be increased during the currency of this licence without an order, in writing, by the Licensing WP(C) Nos.1227, 1248 & 1314 / 2010 -3- Authority permitting such increases. The order of the Licensing Authority in this regard is liable to be cancelled or modified by the State Government, if they consider such a course, just and necessary.” Therefore, under Section 3 of the Act, exhibition of cinematograph shall be only in compliance with the conditions and restrictions imposed by the Licensing Authority, and special condition No.(3) requires that rates prescribed shall not be increased during the currency of the licence without an order in writing by the Licensing Authority permitting such increase. 7. This very issue has been considered by this Court in the judgment in Kodungaloor Municipal Council v. State of Kerala (1996(2) KLT 923), where after referring to Section 3 of the Act and the special conditions of the licence, it has been held that being a statutory prescription, the revision of rate can only be in terms of the Act and the special conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P2 Government Order referred to above in support of his plea that the Local Authority has no jurisdiction to restrict the right of a licencee to revise the rate. It is seen that in the judgment in referred to above, an identical order has been dealt with by this Court and this Court did not approve the said order and WP(C) Nos.1227, 1248 & 1314 / 2010 -4- the order was set aside. Reliance was also placed on Ext.P4 judgment dated 17/07/1996 in O.P.No.7196/1996. However, I notice that the provisions of the Act or the Rules were not referred to in the said judgment. In the light of the statutory provisions, conditions of licence and the judgment in the case of the Kodungaloor Municipal Council v. State of Kerala referred to above, I cannot accept the contention now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. In addition to all these, the petitioners themselves have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Municipality to revise the rate and it was therefore that they made Ext.P1 application, resulting in Ext.P7 order. Having done all these, it is not now open to the petitioners to turn around and contend that the Municipality has no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel then contended that the licence, a copy of which is Ext.P5, does not contain any rate as prescribed in the special conditions of the licence. However, even in Ext.P1 the prevailing rates are indicated, which means that the petitioners have been charging rates on the approval of the Local Authority. If the existing rate is to be revised, the same can be done only with the approval of the Local Authority, and therefore, the WP(C) Nos.1227, 1248 & 1314 / 2010 -5- contention that in the absence of rate mentioned in the licence itself, permission of the Local Authority is unnecessary, also cannot be accepted. 9. Special condition No.(4) of the licence provides that in case any person is aggrieved by an order issued by the Licensing Authority, he is entitled to file an appeal to the State Government. Therefore, it will be open to the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy and it is for the appellate authority to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there should be a revision of rate or not. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy provided in the special condition No.(4) of the licence referred to above. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg