Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Other conditions for grant of licence.-

(1) Licence shall not be granted for a video cinema if it is situated:--

(i) within the limits of a local area already having a cinema in a permanent building or where the same is under construction;

(ii) within the radius of 500 meters of the outer limits of a local area with population exceeding 5 lakhs and having a cinema in a permanent building;

(iii) within the radius of 1000 meters of the outer limits of a local area with population exceeding 50,000 but not exceeding 5 lakhs and having a cinema in a permanent building;

(iv) within the radius of 1500 meters of the outer limits of a local area with population up to 50,000 and having a cinema in a permanent building;

(v) within 500 meters of another video cinema;

(vi) in a restaurant or any other establishment, by whatever name called, engaged in serving or catering meals, snacks, hot or cold drinks etc. (2) A travelling video cinema shall not be licenced within the radius of 2 kms. of cinema in a permanent building."

"15. Validity of licence.-- (1) Except in the case of travelling video cinema a licence for exhibition by means of video may be granted or renewed by the licensing authority for a period not exceeding three years at a time.

(2) A licence to a travelling video cinema for a particular place shall initially be granted for a period not exceeding six months which may be extended for a further period not exceeding six months."

32. The distance restrictions provided under Rules 11(1) and 11(2) have been vehemently challenged by the learned Counsel for petitioners as arbitrary, unreasonable and not in public interest. It may be very important to mention here that all the petitioners applied for grant of the licence for exhibiting films in temporary buildings and so far as the applications of the petitioners are concerned only Rule 11 (2) is relevant. Rule 11(1) provides for the exhibition of films by video in permanent buildings. Learned Counsel challenged both Rules 11(1) and 11(2). However, since petitioners have never applied for grant of licence for exhibiting films from a permanent building, we do not propose to consider the challenge with regard to Rule 11(1). The licence has been refused to the petitioners of Sitar Video Hall and Payal Video Hall under Section 11(2) which provides that a travelling video cinema shall not be licensed within a radius of two kms. of a cinema in a permanent building. The reasonableness of this restriction has to be considered. It cannot be disputed that the State Government is entitled to legislate and enact laws to control the exhibition of films for purposes of entertainment and amusement. The learned Counsel, however, submitted that the burden is on the respondent-State to show that the restriction provided by Rule 11 is in public interest. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in a number of cases; namely, Saghir Ahmad v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 SC 728 : (1955 All LJ 38); Faruq v. State of M. P., (1969) 1 SCC 853: (AIR 1970 SC 93); Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898: (1980 Cri LJ 636) and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325: (1982 Cri LJ (NOC) 193). There cannot be any dispute so far the legal position is concerned that the burden is on the State to show the reasonableness of the restriction imposed in exercise of fundamental right. Learned Counsel has referred to the counter-affidavits filed and has submitted that there is nothing to justify that the restriction imposed by Rule 11 is reasonable and in the public interest.

34. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel at length. A perusal of Rule 2(g) shows that temporary building means a building which is not a permanent building and includes both, tent or a simitar structure. Licence for the travelling video cinema may be granted in respect of a temporary building. It cannot be denied that the temporary building cannot contain all the facilities and safety measures which are generally required in a permanent building for exhibiting films. The large number of viewers come in shifts and convenience and safety of such people coming for entertainment and pleasure is a relevant consideration. In a temporary building all these safety measures and facilities and convenience cannot be provided and if the State has made Rules to restrict such exhibitions from temporary buildings frequently and for longer period, we do not think that the restrictions contained are in any way unreasonable and not in public interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Puthamma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771, has laid down the guidelines for testing reasonableness. If the restrictions imposed by the Rules for exhibition of films by travelling video cinema are considered in that light they cannot be said to be un- reasonable. Licences for travelling video cinema are granted for a short term so that they may cater to the need of those who may not go to the cities on account of long distances and may thus have the facility of entertainment on cheap rates nearer to the place of their residence. In our opinion, the distance restriction provided under R. 11(2) serves with twin purposes, firstly, it prevents the mushroom growth of such cinemas inside the populated areas and already having cinemas running from permanent building and, secondly, it provides facility of entertainment to those who are not able to cover long distances. Considered both ways, in our opinion, the restrictions put are reasonable. If the exhibition of films from such temporary buildings is left uncontrolled, the dangerous consequences to society in general may be well imagined. Out of anxiety to earn money such exhibitions may be started from every place having no regard to the propriety of the place for the purpose. It shall also create a serious law and order situation, as the law-enforcing authorities may not be able to cover all such places and the viewers shall be exposed to such places for purpose of entertainment having no necessary facilities and safeguards. In our opinion, the restrictions imposed by the Rules are reasonable and in public interest. It may also be observed at this place that the rules apply only to exhibition of films through video at places with seating capacity not exceeding 125. The petitioners are not thus facing the total prohibition of the business. It is open to them to apply for a licence to exhibit films from a building with a seating capacity of more than 125 and in that case the impugned Rules will not be applicable to them. Thus the restriction is not complete but it is only partial and regulatory. In law, there is a presumption with regard to the constitutionality of the Rules. We have thoroughly considered the various aspects of the case and we do not find anything on which basis it may be said that the restrictions contained in the Rules, specially Rules 11 and 15, are unreasonable and not in public interest.