Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 192 of 1952. Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated 24th August	 1951	 of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5744 of 1951. Appellant in person. C. K. Daphtary	 Solicitor General for India (R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale	 with him) for the respondent. C. K. Daphtary	 Solicitor General for India (P.A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale	 with him) for the Intervener (Union of India). October 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J. The appellant is the owner of a permanent cinema theatre called Sri Brahannayaki in Tiruthuraipundi	 Tanjore District	 and held a licence from the District Magistrate	 Tanjore	 in respect of the same with effect from September 5	1950	 to September 4	 1951. The licence is granted for one year at a time and is renewable from year to year. He objected to certain conditions in the licence imposed by the District Magistrate	 Tanjore	 in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. O. Mis. 1054	 Home	 dated 28th March	 1948	 and G. O. Mis. 3422	 dated 15th September	 1948) issued by the State of Madras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by section 8 of the Cinematograph Act of 1918. The impugned conditions may conveniently be set out here: "4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance one or more approved films of such length and for such length of time	 as the Provincial 688 Government or the Central Government may	 by general or special order	 direct. (b) The licensee shall comply with such directions as the Provincial Government may by general or special order give as to the manner in which approved films shall be exhibited in the course of any performance." Explanation: " Approved Films" means a cinematograph film approved for the purpose of this condition by the Provincial Government or the Central Government. Special condition 3. The licensee should exhibit at the commencement of each performance not less than 2	000 feet of one or more approved films. " The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Madras under article 226 of the Constitution for an ' order or direction to the District Magistrate	 Tanjore	 to delete the said conditions from his licence and to the State of Madras to rescind the notifications issued by it. His contention was that the conditions imposed by the said notifications are ultra vires and beyond the powers of the licensing authority and that they are void inasmuch as they contravened his freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) and his right to carry on trade or business under article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Both the contentions were rejected	 the High Court holding that the conditions imposed were reasonable and were in the interests of the general public. The High Court granted leave to appeal to this Court. The appellant who argued the appeal in person raised 2 main contentions. He argued firstly	 that the notifications and conditions are beyond the competence of the Government of Madras and the District Magistrate	 and secondly	 that in any event the conditions do not	 as being outside the scope of the Cinematograph Act	 amount to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public. We are of opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on the second ground. It may be stated that the Madras Cinematograph Rules	 1933	 were amended by the notification G. O. Mis. 1054	 Home	 dated 689 March	 28	 1948	 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8 of the (Central Act II of 1918)	 and in place of condition 4 of the licence in Form A	 the impugned conditions were inserted. Section 8 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The object of the Act as stated in the preamble is to make provisions for regulating" exhibitions under the . Without going into the question whether it is within the ' contemplation of the Act that educational and instructional films should be shown and whether the holder of a cinema licence may be compelled to exhibit such films as falling within the scope of the Act	 the question which still arises for consideration is whether the impugned conditions amount to "reasonable restrictions" within the meaning of article 19(6). Approved 'films are those films which are either produced by the Government or are purchased from the private producers. As the private producers do not possess any machinery for marketing their films the Government purchases them from such producers and charges hire from the cinema licensees for showing such films. Condition 4(a) compels a licensee to exhibit at each performance one or more approved films of such length and for such length of time as the Provincial Government or Central Government may direct. Neither the length of the film nor the period of time for which it may be shown is specified in the condition and the Government is vested with an unregulated discretion to compel a licensee to exhibit a film of any length at its discretion which may consume the whole or the greater part of the time for which each performance is given. The exhibition of a film generally takes 2 hours and a quarter. Now if there is nothing to guide the discretion of the Government it is open to it to require the licensee to show approved films of such great length as may exhaust the whole of the time or the major portion of it intended for each performance. The fact that the length of the time for which the approved films may be shown is also unspecified leads to the same conclusion	 in other 690 words	 the Government may compel a licensee to exhibit an approved film	 say for an hour and a half or even 2 hours. As the condition stands	 there can be no doubt that there is no principle to guide the licensing authority and a condition such as the above may lead to the loss or total extinction of the business itself. A condition couched in such wide language is bound to operate harshly upon the cinema business and cannot be regarded as a reasonable restriction. It savours more of the nature of an imposition than a restriction. It is significant that the condition does not profess to lay down that the approved films must be of an educational or instructional character for the purpose of social or public welfare. We think therefore	 that condition 4(a) as it stands at present amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the licensee to carry on his business and must be declared void as against the fundamental right of the appellant under article 19(1)(g). Among the special conditions	 condition No. 3 which requires the licensee to exhibit at the commencement of each performance not less than 2	000 feet of one or more of the approved films is open to similar objection. This condition lays down the minimum length of the film to be shown as 2	000 feet and gives no indication of the maximum. We are informed that the showing of a film of 2	000 feet will take about 20 minutes. This will work out to about 1/7th of the total time of each performance if it is taken to last for 2 1/4 hours. Whether a maximum of 2	000 feet would be reasonable is a matter we need not consider but as this is mentioned as the minimum it is obvious that the Government may compel the licensee to exhibit a film of 10	000 or 12	000 feet which in effect will amount to pushing out of the film intended to be shown by the licensee during the time allotted. Here again no maximum limit having been imposed it follows that the discretion of the authority is unrestrained and unfettered and must lead to an unjustifiable interference with the right of the licensee to carry on his business. We hold	 therefore	 that this condition is equally obnoxious and must be deleted. We accordingly allow the appeal and hold 691 that condition 4(a) and special condition 3 expressed as they are at present are void and have no legal effect as against the fundamental right of the appellant under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We express no opinion upon the first contention advanced by the appellant. The appellant will get his costs from the respondent in this Court and in the Court below. Appeal allowed.

The appellant	 the owner of a permanent cinema theatre in the Tanjore District	 was granted a license by the District Magistrate	 Tanjore	 subject to certain conditions imposed by him in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. 0. 1054	 Home	 dated 28th March	 1948	 and G. O. Mis. 3422 dated 15th September	 1948) issued by the State of Madras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by section 8 of the Cinematograph Act (II of 1918). The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows: " 4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance one or more approved films of such length and for such length of time	 as the Provincial Government or the Central Government may	 by general or special order	 direct. 687 special condition 3. The licensee should exhibit at the commencement of each performance not less than 2	000 feet of one or more approved films. " Held	 that condition No. 4(a) and special condition No. 3	 imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the licensee to carry on his business and were void as they infringed the fundamental right of the appellant guaranteed to him under article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.