{"id":147434,"date":"1988-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988"},"modified":"2015-06-06T09:59:51","modified_gmt":"2015-06-06T04:29:51","slug":"minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988","title":{"rendered":"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 526, \t\t 1988 SCR (2) 511<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, K.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMINERVA TALKIES, BANGALORE & ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/01\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR  526\t\t  1988 SCR  (2) 511\n 1988 SCC  Supl.  176\t  JT 1988 (1)\t 36\n 1988 SCALE  (1)10\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1992 SC1519\t (4,6)\n\n\nACT:\n     Karnataka\tCinemas\t (Regulations)\tRules  framed  under\nsection 19  of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964\nWhether rule  41-A has\tbeen made  \"for purposes of the Act\"\nand places  unreasonable restrictions  on the right to carry\non business  of exhibiting  cinematograph films in violation\nof Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     These appeals and writ petitions involved two questions\nof law-(i)  whether  Rule  41-A\t of  the  Karnataka  Cinemas\n(Regulations)  Rules   (the  Rules)   framed  by  the  State\nGovernment  under   section  19\t of  the  Karnataka  Cinemas\nRegulations Act\t of  1964  (the\t Act)  had  been  made\t\"for\npurposes of  the Act\",\tand (ii)  whether Rule\t41-A  placed\nunreasonable restrictions  on the appellants' right to carry\non their  business of  exhibiting  cinematograph  films,  in\nviolation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\n     The appellants\/petitioners held licences for exhibiting\ncinematograph films  in their  cinema theatres under the Act\nand the Rules in Form prescribed by the Rules. Normally, the\nCinema owners  were holding  four shows\t in a day, but later\non, they  increased the shows to five in a day starting from\n10 a.m.\t and ending  at 12  a.m. This  caused  a  number  of\nproblems. The  State Government\t in exercise  of its  powers\nunder section  19 of the Act framed Rule 41-A directing that\nno licensee would exhibit more than four cinematograph shows\nin a day. The appellants challenged the validity of the Rule\n41-A  placing\trestrictions  on   their  right\t to  exhibit\ncinematograph films before the High Court by writ petitions.\nThe appellants\tcontended before  the High  Court  that\t the\nrestriction imposed  by Rule 41-A on the licensees requiring\nthem to exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond the\nrule-making power,  as\tthe  Rule  did\tnot  carry  out\t the\npurposes of  the Act,  and that the Rule placed unreasonable\nrestrictions on\t their fundamental  right to  carry  on\t the\nbusiness of exhibiting cinematograph films.\n     There was difference of opinion between the two learned\nJudges constituting the Bench of the High Court, which heard\nthe petitions.\tK.S. Puttaswamy, J. held infer alia that the\nimpugned rule was ultra\n512\nvires  as   it\twas  beyond  the  rule-making  power  of the\nGovernment under  section 19  of the Act, and that it placed\nunreasonable restrictions  on the appellants' right to carry\non their  business guaranteed  under Article 19(1)(g) of the\nConstitution. Narayan  Rai Kudoor, J. upheld the validity of\nthe Rule,  holding that\t the impugned  Rule carried  out the\npurposes of  the Act, viz., the regulation of the exhibition\nof cinematograph films, and the restriction placed by it was\nreasonable. Since  there was  difference of  opinion between\nthe two learned Judges, the matter was placed before M. Rama\nJois, J.,  who agreed  with the\t opinion of N.R. Kudoor, J.,\nholding that the State Government had the power to frame the\nRule and the Rule did not place any unreasonable restriction\non the\tappellants' right to carry on business of exhibiting\ncinematograph films, and that it was not utlra vires the Act\nand did\t not violate  appellants' fundamental  rights  under\nArticle 19  of the  Constitution. Consequently, all the writ\npetitions were\tdismissed. Aggrieved  by the decision of the\nHigh Court, the appellants filed appeals in this Court. Some\nof the\taggrieved cinema owners filed writ petitions in this\nCourt, challenging the validity of Rule 41-A.\n     Dismissing the  appeals and  the  writ  petitions,\t the\nCourt,\n^\n     HELD: The question whether Rule 41-A was validly framed\nto carry  out the purposes of the Act could be determined on\nthe analysis  of the provisions of Act. The title of the Act\nand the\t preamble clearly  indicate that the main purpose of\nthe Act\t is to\tregulate the exhibition of the cinematograph\nfilms in  places in  respect of\t which a  licence  for\tthat\npurpose may  be issued. The extent of control and regulation\nis evidenced  by the  provisions of  the Act.  The  ultimate\npurpose\t of   these  provisions\t is  to\t ensure\t safety\t and\nconvenience of\tthe general  public  visiting  the  licensed\npremises for  witnessing the  cinematograph films  exhibited\ntherein. [518D,H; 519A-B; 520F]\n     Section 19\t of the\t Act  confers  power  on  the  State\nGovernment to  frame rules  for carrying out the purposes of\nthe Act.  The preamble and the provisions of the Act provide\nfor the\t regulation of\tthe exhibition\tof the cinematograph\nfilms, which  is the  primary object  of the  Act. The\t Act\nconfers\t wide\tpowers\ton  the\t State\tGovernment  for\t the\nregulation of  the exhibition  of  the\tcinematograph  films\nwhich  include\t power\tto   regulate  hours   during  which\ncinematograph  films   may   be\t  exhibited,   the   seating\narrangements for  the members  of the  public, and any other\nallied\tmatters\t  pertaining  to   public  safety,   health,\nsanitation and\tincidental matters.  Rule 41-A\twhich limits\nthe numbers  of shows  in a day, regulates the exhibition of\nthe cinematograph films and carries out the\n513\n     purposes of  the Act.  It was,  therefore, referable to\nthe State  Government's general power under section 19(1) of\nthe Act.  Rule 41-A was further referable to clauses (a) and\n(d) of section 19(2) of the Act. Clause (a) confers power on\nthe State  Government  to  frame  rules\t prescribing  terms,\nconditions and\trestrictions subject  to which a licence may\nbe granted. The State Government may lay down conditions and\nimpose restrictions prescribing hours during which the films\nmight be  exhibited and\t also the  number of  shows  in\t the\nlicensed premises.  Clause (d)\tconfers power  on the  State\nGovernment to  frame  rules  regulating\t the  exhibition  of\ncinematograph films  for  the  purpose\tof  securing  public\nsafety.\t Any   rule  regulating\t  the  exhibition   of\t the\ncinematograph films  if\t reasonably  connected\twith  public\nsafety would be justified under the said provision. Rule 41-\nA adds\ta condition  to the licence that exhibition of films\nwould be  limited to  four shows in a day. No licensee could\nclaim to  have unrestricted  right to  exhibit cinematograph\nfilms for all the 24 hours of the day. Such a claim would be\nagainst public interest. The restriction to limit the number\nof shows to four in a day placed by rule 41-A was regulatory\nin nature which clearly carried out purposes of the Act.\n[520G-H;521A-F]\n     The provisions of the Act have laid down the policy for\nregulating the\texhibition of the cinematograph films in the\nlicensed premises  and also  for regulating the construction\nof   the   building,   auditorium,   galleries,\t  balconies,\nprojection rooms,  seating accommodation  and  other  allied\nmatters related\t to public  health and safety, etc., and all\nother matters  relating to the exhibition of films. Validity\nof none\t of the\t other rules  has  been\t challenged  by\t the\nappellants\/petitioners although\t those provisions  placed  a\nnumber\tof   restrictions  on\ttheir  right  of  exhibiting\ncinematograph films.  The restrictions\tplaced by  Rule 41-A\nare similar  to the  restrictions already  placed  on  their\nright to  exhibit cinematograph\t films. It  is incidental to\nthe  general   power  of   regulating  the   exhibition\t  of\ncinematograph films, and it is connected with the regulation\nof the exhibition of the cinematograph films.[522C-D,H;523A]\n     The  question   arises   whether\trule   41-A   placed\nunreasonable restrictions  on the appellants' right to carry\non business  of exhibiting  cinematograph films in violation\nof   Article\t19(1)(g)   of\t the\tConstitution,\t The\nappellants\/petitioners have  not challenged  the validity of\nthe Act.  Therefore, they  claim no  unrestricted  right  to\nexhibit cinematograph  films. They have been carrying on the\nbusiness exhibiting  films under  a licence  in\t form  which\ncontained the terms and conditions prescribed by the Act and\nthe  Rules  framed  therunder.\tRule  41-A  added  one\tmore\ncondition to  it, requiring the licensee not to exhibit more\nthan four\n514\nshows in  a day.  The freedom to practise any profession, or\nto carry on any occupation, trade or business, guaranteed by\nArticle 19(1)(g),  is not  absolute, it is subject to clause\n(6) of\tArticle 19,  which permits  imposition of reasonable\nrestrictions by\t law, if  it is necessary in the interest of\nthe general public. Any law imposing reasonable restrictions\non the\texercise of the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g)\nwould be  valid if  it is  in the  interest of\tthe  general\npublic. Restriction  contemplated in  Article 19(6)  may  in\ncertain circumstances  extend to  total prohibition, as held\nby this\t Court in Narender Kumar v. Union of India,<\/a> [1960] 2\nSCR 375. The. material placed before the State Government as\nalso this  Court, clearly  demonstrated\t the  necessity\t for\ncurtailing the\tholding of  five shows to four to remove the\npublic grievance,  as the  representation filed on behalf of\nthe public  highlighted the hazards to public safety and the\ninconvenience caused  to the  members of the public visiting\nthe cinema  halls. Rule\t 41-A was  framed to meet the public\nneed and to secure public safety by placing minimum possible\nrestrictions on\t the licensees.\t The Court found no merit in\nthe contentions of the appellants\/petitioners that Rule 41-A\nwas neither  necessary nor  reasonable as  the\tpurpose\t for\nwhich it was framed could have been achieved if the relevant\nauthorities carried  out their\tduties in making inspections\nand securing  the compliance of the existing rules, and that\nthe impugned  Rule did\tnot prescribe  the duration  of four\nshows or  the intervals\t between them  and each\t one of\t the\nreasons set  out by the State to justify the impugned Rules,\ncould be  fully achieved  by the enforcement of the existing\nRules.[523B-E;525A-C]\n     In holding\t five shows,  the licensees  did not exhibit\napproved documentaries\tand  slides  and  adequate  measures\ncould not  be taken  to ensure public safety and health. The\nCourt had  no doubt  that the  existing Rules could not meet\nthe situation  and the\tState Government  was  justified  in\nframing\t   Rule\t    41-A    placing\tlimit\t  on\t the\nappellants'\/petitioners'  right\t  to  exhibit  cinematograph\nfilms to  four shows  which was\t in the public interest. The\nappellants\/petitioners had no unrestricted fundamental right\nto carry  on business  of  exhibiting  cinematograph  films.\nTheir right  to carry  on  business  was  regulated  by\t the\nprovisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. These\nprovisions were\t necessary to  ensure public  safety. Public\nhealth and  other allied  matters. The\tRule 41-A  does\t not\nprohibit exhibition  of the cinematograph films, instead, it\nregulates it  by providing  that instead  of five shows only\nfour shows  should be  exhibited in a day. The Rule does not\ntake away  the licensees'  right to  carry  on\tbusiness  of\nexhibiting cinematograph  films; it  merely regulates it. No\nrule or\t law could  be declared\t unreasonable merely because\nthere was  reduction in\t the income  of a  on account of the\nregulation of  the business.  Rule 41-A\t does not  place any\nunreason-\n515\nable restriction on the appellants'\/petitioners' fundamental\nright guaranteed  to them  under  Article  19(1)(g)  of\t the\nConstitution. It  carries out  the purpose  of\tthe  Act  in\nregulating the\texhibition of the cinematograph films in the\nlicensed premises.  Rule 41-A is inter vires the Act. [525G-\nH;526C,527A-B]\n     The Court was in agreement with the majority opinion of\nthe High Court.\n     Narender Kumar  v. Union  of India,<\/a>  [1960] 2  SCR 375,\nreferred to.\n     Shelvarajan v.  State of  Mysore, [1963]  1 Mysore\t Law\nJournal 28, disapproved.\n     Vishnu Talkies v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 Patna 26 and\nD.K .  V. Prasad  Rao v.  State of  Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1984\nA.P. 75, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 54 to
\n73A of 1985 etc.
\n     From the  Judgment and  order dated  9.10.1984  of\t the
\nKarnataka High\tCourt in  W.P.\tNos.  16170,  16171,  16172,
\n16173, 13198,  15052, 16283,  16285-86, 16331, 16334, 16335,
\n16597, 16598,  17116, 17612 of 1981, 39414 of 1982, 17183 of
\n1981, 42082 of 1982, 3833 of 1983 and 15053 of 1981
\n     A.K. Sen. Padmanabha Mahle, Miss C.K. Sucharita, N.D.B.
\nRaju, M.  Rangaswamy, K.R. Nagaraja, B. Krishna Prasad, Miss
\nMalini Poduval and R.B. Datar for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     B.R.L. Iyenger,  M. Veerappa  and Navin  Singh for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SINGH, J.\tThese appeals and writ petitions involve two
\nquestions of  law; (i)\twhether Rule  41-A of  the Karnataka
\nCinemas (Regulations)  Rules (hereinafter referred to as the
\nRules) framed  by the  State Government\t under Section 19 of
\nthe Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act
\n23 of  1964) (hereinafter  referred to\tas the Act) has been
\nmade “for  purposes of\tthe Act”, and (ii) whether Rule 41-A
\nplaces unreasonable restrictions on the appellants’ right to
\n516<\/span>
\ncarry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in
\nviolation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants\/petitioners hold licences for exhibiting
\ncinematograph films  in their  cinema theatres under the Act
\nand the Rules in Form prescribed by the Rules. The Rules and
\nconditions  contained\tin  the\t Licence  (Form\t F)  do\t not
\nprescribe any  restriction on  the number  of shows of films
\nwhich a\t licensee can  exhibit in his theatre. Condition No.
\n11 of the licence, however, provides that: “No cinematograph
\nexhibition shall  continue after  such time  not later\tthan
\n1.00 a.m.”  Normally, the  cinema owners  were holding\tfour
\nshows but later on, they increased it to five shows in a day
\nstarting from  10 a.m. to 12 noon, 12 noon to 3 p.m., 3 p.m.
\nto 6  p.m. 6  p.m. to  9 p.m.  9 p.m.  to 12  a.m. Thus\t the
\ncinematograph films  were being\t exhibited continuously from
\n10 a.m. to mid-night, which caused a number of problems. The
\nState Government  in exercise  of its power under Section 19
\nof the Act framed Rule 41-A directing that no licensee shall
\nexhibit more  than four cinematograph shows in a day. Rule 4
\n1-A is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “41-A. Number\t of shows  permissible in  a day: No
\n\t  licensee   shall    exhibit\tmore\tthan\tfour
\n\t  cinematograph shows in a day. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In pursuance  of Rule 41-A the appellants were directed
\nto exhibit cinematograph films for four shows only in a day.
\nThe appellants\tchallenged validity  of the  aforesaid\trule
\nplacing restriction  on their right to exhibit cinematograph
\nfilms before  the High\tCourt of  Karnataka by means of writ
\npetitions  under   Article  226\t of  the  Constitution.\t The
\nappellants  contended\tbefore\tthe   High  Court  that\t the
\nrestriction imposed  by Rule 41-A on the licensees requiring
\nthem not to exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond
\nthe rule  making power,\t as the\t Rule did  not carry out the
\npurposes of  the Act. It was further contended that the Rule
\nplaced unreasonable  restriction on  their fundamental right
\nto carry  on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films.
\nThe respondent\tState submitted\t before the  High Court that
\nthe State  Government realised that on account of exhibition
\nof five\t shows in  a day,  in a\t cinema theatre,  it was not
\npossible for the licensees to keep the theatres hygienically
\nclean and  reports were\t received that\tfor want of time the
\nlicensees were\tnot exhibiting\tapproved  films\t and  slides
\nrequired  under\t  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  The  State
\nGovernment found  that exhibition of five shows in a day was
\nnot conducive  to the health of the cine-goers and therefore
\nit framed  Rule 41-A  limiting the  shows. It  was contended
\nthat the rule was
\n517<\/span>
\nintended  for\tthe  regulation\t  of   the   exhibition\t  of
\ncinematograph films in the licensed premises, and was within
\nthe scope  and purposes\t of the\t Act. It was further pleaded
\nbefore the  High Court\tthat the  impugned Rule 41-A was not
\nviolative of  Article 19  of the Constitution as it placed a
\nreasonable restriction\tin the interest of general public as
\ncontemplated by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     A Division Bench of the High Court heard the parties at
\nlength, but  there was difference of opinion between the two
\nlearned Judges\tconstituting the  Bench of  the High  Court.
\nK.S. Puttaswamy\t J. held  that the  impugned rule  was ultra
\nvires as  it  was  beyond  the\trule  making  power  of\t the
\nGovernment under Section 19 of the Act. He further held that
\nthe rule placed unreasonable restrictions on the appellants’
\nright to  carry on  their business  guaranteed to them under
\nArticle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The learned Judge held
\nthat the  restriction placed by the Rule 41-A was neither in
\nthe interests  of the  general public nor it was reasonable.
\nNarayan Rai  Kudoor; J.\t in a  separate judgment  upheld the
\nvalidity of  the Rule holding that the impugned Rule carried
\nout the\t purposes of  the Act, namely, the regulation of the
\nexhibition of cinematograph films and the restriction placed
\nby it  was reasonable  and in  the interests  of the general
\npublic. Since  there was  difference of\t opinion between the
\ntwo learned  Judges the\t matter was  placed before  M.\tRama
\nJois, J.,  who agreed  with the\t opinion expressed  by\tN.R.
\nKudoor J.  Rama Jois  J. held  that the State Government had
\npower to frame Rule 41-A under Section 19 of the Act and the
\nRule did  not place  any  unreasonable\trestriction  on\t the
\nappellants’  right   to\t carry\ton  business  of  exhibiting
\ncinematograph  films.  The  learned  Judge  ruled  that\t the
\nimpugned Rule  was not\tultra vires  the Act  and it did not
\nviolate appellants’  fundamental rights\t under Article 19 of
\nthe Constitution.  In view  of the majority opinion, all the
\nwrit petitions\twere dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of
\nthe  High   Court  the\t appellants  have   challenged\t the
\ncorrectness of\tthe High  Court Judgment  in these  appeals.
\nSome of\t the aggrieved\tcinema owners  have also  filed writ
\npetitions  before   this  Court\t under\tArticle\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution challenging  validity of Rule 41-A. The appeals
\nand writ  petitions raise  common questions of law, and they
\nare being disposed of by a common order.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.    A.K.    Sen,    learned    counsel\t  for\t the
\nappellants\/petitioners contended  that the provisions of the
\nAct do\tnot confer  any power  on the  State  Government  to
\nregulate the  number of\t shows, and the restrictions imposed
\nby the\timpugned Rule  41-A limiting  the number of shows to
\nfour did  not fall  within the\tpurview of Section 19 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
518<\/span><\/p>\n
He further  urged that\tthe restriction\t placed by Rule 41-A
\nwas unreasonable  and violative\t of  appellants\t fundamental
\nright to  carry on  their business under Article 19(1)(g) of
\nthe Constitution.  According  to  the  learned\tcounsel\t the
\nrestriction placed  by the Rule was unreasonable because the
\nmischief it  sought to\tmeet by\t placing the restriction was
\nnot established\t and its  impact was  excessive which caused
\nundue hardship\tto the cinema owners, as by the reduction of
\nthe number  of shows  from 5  to 4  there was  corresponding
\nreduction in  the income  of the  cinema owners. Shri B.R.L.
\nIyengar,  learned   counsel  for  the  State  of  Karnataka,
\nsubmitted that\tthe purpose  of\t the  Act  was\tto  regulate
\nexhibition of  cinematograph films  in licensed premises and
\nthe power of regulation of exhibition of cinematograph films
\nwas wide  enough embracing  the power to limit the number of
\nshows. He referred to Sections 14 and 19(2)(d) in support of
\nhis submission\tthat the  impugned rule 41-A carried out the
\npurposes of  the Act. The learned counsel further urged that
\nthe restriction\t placed by  the impugned Rule was reasonable
\nand made  in the  public interest and there was no violation
\nof  appellants\t right\tguaranteed  by\tArticle\t 19  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  whether Rule\t 41-A is  validly framed  to
\ncarry out  the purposes\t of the Act can be determined on the
\nanalysis of  the provisions of the Act. The declared will of
\nthe legislature\t and the  policy and  purpose of the Act are
\ndiscernable  from   the\t title,\t preamble  and\tthe  express
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t The legislative will is declared by
\nthe Preamble of the Act which seeks to deal with the subject
\nof  enactment.\t Generally,  preamble  to  an  Act,  briefly
\nindicates the  object of  the legislation.  It\tmay  not  be
\nexhaustive, but\t still it  discloses the  primary purpose of
\nthe legislation.  If the  express provisions  of the Act are
\nplain and  unambiguous, it  is always  advisable to find out
\nthe purpose of the legislation from those provisions, but if
\nthe  provisions\t are  ambiguous\t and  the  courts  face\t the
\ndifficulty in  deducing the  purpose of\t the  Act  from\t the
\nexpress provisions  of the Act it is permissible to refer to
\nthe  title   and  preamble  of\tthe  Act  to  find  out\t the
\nlegislative object,  and the  purpose of  the  Act.  In\t the
\ninstant case  the title of the Act is “The Karnataka Cinemas
\n(Regulation) Act  1964” and its preamble declares that it is
\n“An Act\t to provide  for regulating  exhibition by  means of
\ncinematographs\tand   the  licensing   of  places  in  which
\ncinematograph  films   are  exhibited\tin  the\t  State\t  of
\nKarnataka.”  It\t  further  provides   that  “whereas  it  is
\nexpedient to  provide for  regulating exhibition by means of
\ncinematograph  and   the  licensing   of  places   in  which
\ncinematograph films  are exhibited in the State of Karnataka
\nand for other allied matters,” the Act is being enacted. The
\ntitle of  the Act and the preamble clearly indicate that the
\nmain purpose of the Act is to
\n519<\/span>
\nregulate the  exhibition of cinematograph films in places in
\nrespect of  which a  licence for that purpose may be issued.
\nThe extent  of control\tand regulation\tis evidenced  by the
\nprovisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides that no
\nperson shall  exhibit cinematograph  films in a place except
\nin accordance with the licence issued under the Act. Section
\n5 provides  for making\tof application\tin  writing  to\t the
\nlicensing authority  for the  grant of\tlicence.  Section  6
\nrequires  the\tlicensing  authority   to  consider  matters
\nspecified therein  in granting\tor refusing  a licence, with
\nspecial reference  to the  interest of the public generally.
\nSection 7  provides for\t limiting the  number of places that
\ncan be\tlicensed in  any area.\tSection 8  provides that the
\nlicensing authority  shall not\tgrant a licence unless it is
\nsatisfied that-the  rules  made\t under\tthe  Act  have\tbeen
\nsubstantially complied\twith and  adequate precautions\thave
\nbeen taken  in the  place in respect of which the licence is
\nto be  granted providing  for the  safety,  convenience\t and
\ncomfort\t of   the  persons  attending  exhibitions  therein.
\nSection 7  confers power on the licensing authority to limit
\nthe number  of places  that can\t be  licensed  in  an  area.
\nSection 10  provides for  appeal against  the decision under
\nSections 5  and 9.  Section 11\tprovides for  regulating the
\nconstruction or\t reconstruction of a building for the use of
\nexhibition  of\t cinematograph\tfilms  after  obtaining\t the
\npermission of  the licensing  authority. Section  12 confers
\npower on  the State Government to issue directions from time
\nto time to any licensee to exhibit (a) such film or class of
\nfilms having  scientific or  educational  value;  (b)  films
\ndealing with  news and\tcurrent events;\t and (c) documentary
\nfilms indigenous  films, or  such other films having special
\nvalue to  the public.  Subsection (2)  further provides that
\nany directions\tissued by the State Government under Section
\n(1),  shall  be\t deemed\t to  be\t additional  conditions\t and
\nrestrictions subject  to which the licence has been granted.
\nSection 13 confers power on the licensing authority to issue
\ndirections to  any licensee  to exhibit\t in each  show\tsuch
\nslides of  public  interest  as\t may  be  supplied  by\tthat
\nauthority. Section  14 confers power on the State Government
\nto issue  orders and  directions  of  general  character  in
\nrespect of  matters  relating  to  licence  subject  to\t the
\nprovisions of  the Pact\t and Rules to licensing authorities,
\nsuch  orders   and  directions\t for   the   exhibition\t  of
\ncinematograph films,  and every licensing authority is bound
\nto give\t effect to  such orders\t and directions.  Section 15
\nconfers power  on the  State  Government  or  the  licensing
\nauthority to suspend exhibition of films if it is of opinion
\nthat any  film, which  is being\t or is\tabout to be publicly
\nexhibited is  likely to cause a breach of the peace. Section
\n16 provides  for penalties  and Section\t 17 confers power to
\nrevoke or suspend a licence. Section 18 confers power on the
\nState Government to call for and revise orders passed by the
\nlicensing
\n520<\/span>
\nauthority. Section  19 confers power on the State Government
\nto make\t rules after  previous publication, to carry out the
\npurposes of  the Act.  The relevant provisions of Section 19
\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “19. Powers to make rules-(I) The State Government
\n\t  may,\tby  notification,  after  publication,\tmake
\n\t  rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
\n\t  (2) In  particular and  without prejudice  to\t the
\n\t  generality of\t the foregoing power, such rules may
\n\t  provide for- (a) the particulars to be given in an
\n\t  application  for   a\tlicence\t  and\tthe   terms,
\n\t  conditions and  restrictions, subject\t to which  a
\n\t  licence may be granted under this Act and the fees
\n\t  to be paid in respect of such licence;
\n     . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. … …… .. . .. . . .. .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d) the  regulation of  cinematograph\t exhibitions
\n\t  for securing public safety;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (e) regulating  the means  of entrance and exit at
\n\t  places licensed  under this Act; and providing for
\n\t  prevention of disturbance there at;
\n\t  (3) Subject  to any  modification made Section 22,
\n\t  every rule  made under  this Act shall have effect
\n\t  as if enacted in this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 22  provides for placing the rules before each House
\nof the\tState Legislature,  which has power to modify, amend
\nor annul  the same. The aforesaid provisions of the Act seek
\nto regulate  the exhibition  of\t cinematograph\tfilms  in  a
\nlicensed premises.  The ultimate purpose of these provisions
\nis to  ensure safety, and convenience, of the general public
\nvisiting  the\tlicensed   premises   for   witnessing\t the
\ncinematograph films exhibited therein.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 19\t of the\t Act  confers  power  on  the  State
\nGovernment to  frame rules  for carrying out the purposes of
\nthe Act.  Sub-section (2)  of Section  19 requires the State
\nGovernment  to\t frame\trules  in  respect  of\tthe  matters
\nspecified in clauses (a) to (h). While Section 19(1) confers
\ngeneral power on the State Government to make rules to carry
\nout the\t purposes of  the  Act,\t sub-section  (2)  specifies
\nparticular matters  in respect\tof which  rules may be made.
\nThe power  conferred under  subsection (2) is not exhaustive
\ninstead it  is illustrative  and it  does  not\trestrict  or
\naffect the general power of the State Government under
\n521<\/span>
\nsub-section ( 1) to make rules for carrying out the purposes
\nof  the\t  Act.\tA  The\tpower  conferred  by  Section  19(1)
\ncontemplates the  framing of any rule which may have bearing
\non the\tregulation of exhibition of cinematograph films. The
\nrule so made must be related to the purposes of the Act. The
\npreamble and  the provisions  of the  Act  provide  for\t the
\nregulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films which is
\nthe primary  purpose of\t the Act.  Under Section  19(1)\t the
\nLegislature  has   conferred  wide   powers  on\t  the  State
\nGovernment  to\tmake  rules  embracing\tall  the  legitimate
\nactivities connected  with the\texhibition of  cinematograph
\nfilms which include rules for incidental matters like period
\nof show,  admission to the cinema hall, interval between two
\nshows including\t the number  of shows  which a\tlicensee may
\nhold in\t a day. No person has right to exhibit cinematograph
\nfilms in  a place  except under a licence in accordance with
\nits conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. The
\nState Government  has general  power to\t issue directions to
\nany licensee  or licensees  under Section  12 with regard to
\nthe exhibition\tof films.  Section 14 further confers powers
\non the\tState Government  to issue  orders and directions of
\ngeneral character which it may consider necessary in respect
\nof  any\t  matter  relating   to\t the   exhibition   of\t the
\ncinematograph films.  Such directions  issued by  the  State
\nGovernment are binding on the licensee. These directions may
\nbe in  the form\t of  rules  or\tinstructions  directing\t the
\nlicensee  to   limit  the  number  of  shows  if  the  State
\nGovernment considers  it necessary  to do  so, in the public
\ninterest.  The\t Act  confers\twide  powers  on  the  State
\nGovernment for\tthe regulation\tof  the\t exhibition  of\t the
\ncinematograph films  which includes  power to regulate hours
\nduring which  cinematorgraph films  may\t be  exhibited,\t the
\nseating arrangements  for the members of the public, and any
\nother allied  matters pertaining  to public  safety, health,
\nsanitation an(l\t incidental matters.  Rule 41-A which limits
\nthe number of shows in a day regulates the exhibition of the
\ncinematograph films,  and it carries out the purposes of the
\nAct. It\t is, therefore,\t referable to the State Government’s
\ngeneral power  under Section  19(1) of the Act. Rule 41-A is
\nfurther referable to clauses (a) and (d) of Section 19(2) of
\nthe Act. Clause (a) confers power on the State Government to
\nframe rules  prescribing terms,\t conditions and restrictions
\nsubject to  which a  licence may  be granted, in exercise of
\nthat power. The State Government may lay down conditions and
\nimpose restrictions prescribing hours during which films may
\nbe exhibited  and also\tthe number  of shows in the licensed
\npremises. Similarly  clause (d)\t confers power\ton the State
\nGovernment to  frame  rules  regulating\t the  exhibition  of
\ncinematograph films  for  the  purpose\tof  securing  public
\nsafety.\t Any   rule  regulating\t  the  exhibition   of\t the
\ncinematograph films  if\t reasonably  connected\twith  public
\nsafety would H
\n522<\/span>
\nbe justified  under the aforesaid provision. Rule ’11-A adds
\na condition  to the licence that exhibition of films will be
\nlimited to  four shows\tin a  day. No  licensee can claim to
\nhave unrestricted  right to exhibit cinematorgraph films for
\nall the 24 hours of the day. Such a claim would obviously be
\nagainst public\tinterest. Rights  to  exhibit  cinematograph
\nfilms is  regulated by\tthe provisions\tof the\tAct  in\t the
\ninterest of the general public. The restriction to limit the
\nnumber of  shows to  four in  a day  placed by Rule 4 I-A is
\nregulatory in  nature which clearly carries out the purposes
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The provisions of the Act have laid down the policy tor
\nregulating the\texhibition of  cinematograph films,  in\t the
\nlicensed premises,  and also for regulating the construction
\nof   building,\t the   auditorium,   galleries,\t  balconies,
\nprojection rooms,  seating accommodation  and  other  allied
\nmatters related\t to public  health and\tsafety etc.  and all
\nother matters  related to  exhibition of films. The Act does
\nnot regulate  exhibition of films only. Instead, it provides
\nfor  regulation\t of  all  other\t allied\t matters  which\t are
\nincidental, or\tnecessary to the exhibition of cinematograph
\nfilm in\t a  licensed  premises.\t Necessity  to\tprovide\t for
\nincidental matters  to facilitate  successful  operation  of
\nexhibition of  cinematograph film,  may arise  from time  to
\ntime having  regard to the prevailing situation and changing
\ncircumstances.\tThe  legislature  has  therefore  conferred,
\ngeneral\t power\ton  the\t State\tGovernment  to\tframe  rules
\nregulating the\tincidental matters  also. The  Rules contain
\nprovisions regulating  construction  of\t building,  electric
\ninstallation, galleries,  balconies, fire-safety  and  other
\nallied\tmatters.   Rule\t  49   and   50\t  regulate   seating
\naccommodation inside  the hall\tor the\tauditorium requiring
\nthe licensee to make provision for entrance, exit, isles and
\nplacement of  seats with  further provision that there would
\nbe an  exit after every sixth row of seats. Rule 50 requires
\nthe licensee  to provide  for passages,\t corridors and their
\nuse and\t ventilation. Rule 54 provides for water closets and
\nurinals\t and   water  facilities.   Rule  55   provides\t for
\nregulation of  ticket booths, reservation of seats and other
\nincidental matters,  so that  there may not be over-crowding
\nnear the  ticket booths. Rules 77 to 83 contained in Chapter
\nX of  the Rules\t provide for  maintenance of cleanliness and
\nprevention of over-crowding in the C; cinema hall. lt is not
\nnecessary to  refer to\tthe entire  set of  Rules regulating
\nmatters incidental to the exhibition of cinematograph films.
\nValidity of  none of  these Rules has been challenged by the
\nappellants\/ petitioners\t although they\tplace  a  number  of
\nrestrictions of\t their\tright  of  exhibiting  cinematograph
\nfilms. The  restrictions placed\t by the Rule 41-A is similar
\nto the restrictions already placed on their right to exhibit
\ncinematograph films.  It is  incidental to the general power
\nof
\n523<\/span>
\nregulating the\texhibition Of cinematograph films, and it is
\nconnected   with    the\t  regulation\tof   exhibition\t  of
\ncinematorgraph films.\n<\/p>\n
     The  question   arises  whether   Rule  4\t l-A  places
\nunreasonable restrictions  on the appellants’ right to carry
\non business  of exhibiting  cinematograph films in violation
\nof   Article\t19(1)(g)   of\t the\tConstitution.\t The
\nappellants\/petitioners have  not challenged  the validity of
\nthe Act.  Therefore  they  have\t no  unrestricted  right  to
\nexhibit\t cinematograph\tfilms.\tThey  are  carrying  on\t the
\nbusiness under a licence containing the terms and conditions
\nprescribed by  the Act\tand the Rules framed thereunder. The
\nlicence issued\tunder Form  contains a\tnumber of  terms and
\nconditions which  a licensee  is required  to  comply  with,
\nincluding condition No. 11 which provides that no exhibition
\nof cinematograph  film shall  continue after 1.00 a.m.. Rule
\n41-A adds  one more  condition to it, requiring the licensee
\nnot to\texhibit more  than four\t shows\tin  a  day.  Article
\n19(1)(g) guarantees  freedom to\t practise any profession, or
\nto carry  on any  occupation, trade or business. The freedom
\nso guaranteed  is not  absolute. It is subject to clause (6)
\nof  Article   19  which\t permits  imposition  of  reasonable
\nrestrictions by\t law, if  it is necessary in the interest of
\nthe general public. Any law imposing reasonable restrictions
\non the\texercise of the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g)
\nwould be  valid if  it is  in the  interest of\tthe  general
\npublic.\t Restrictions  occuring\t in  Article  19(6)  may  in
\ncertain circumstances extend to total prohibition as held by
\nthis Court in Narender Kumar v. Union of India,<\/a> [1960] 2 SCR\n<\/p>\n
375. A law placing restrictions on the citizens’ right to do
\nbusiness must  satisfy two  conditions set out in clause (6)
\nof Article  19, firstly, the restrictions imposed by the law
\nmust be\t reasonable, and, secondly, the restrictions must be
\nin the\tinterests of  the general public. If these two tests
\nare satisfied  the law\tplacing restriction on the citizens’
\nright guaranteed  under Article\t 19 must  be  upheld.  While
\nconsidering the\t validity of  Rule 41-A\t it is\tnecessary to
\nascertain whether  the restrictions  placed by the said rule
\nare reasonable\tand the\t same are  in the  interests of\t the
\ngeneral public.\n<\/p>\n
     In its  return the\t State Government  has stated that a
\nnumber\tof   complaints\t had  been  received  by  the  State
\nGovernment against  the licensees exhibiting five shows in a
\nday. These  complaints disclosed that licensees had not been
\nexhibiting approved  films and\tslides as  directed  by\t the
\nauthorities under Sections 12 and 13 for want of time as the
\nlicensees were interested in exhibiting the main film within
\nthe short period at their disposal for completing each show.
\nOn receipt  of reports\tfrom various  authorities the  State
\nGovernment found  that the licensees were not exhibiting the
\napproved films and slides as required
\n524<\/span>
\nby the\texisting Rules\tand directions\tissued from  time to
\ntime. It was also brought to its notice that. the holding of
\ncontinuous  five   shows   from\t  10   a.m.   caused   great
\ninconvenience to  the incoming\tand outgoing  cine-goers and
\nendangered public satety. After the end of one show the next
\nshow followed  shortly within  15 minutes, and on account of
\nshortage of  time in  between the two shows there was little
\ntime left  for cleaning\t the cinema halls and there was also
\nrush by\t the cine-goers\t to occupy  the seats. The licensees
\ngenerally  started  exhibiting\tapproved  films\t and  slides
\nbefore the  cine-goers could  occupy their  seats  with\t the
\nresult they  could not\thave the  benefit of  the same.\t The
\nreports further\t disclosed  that  the  absence\tof  interval
\nbetween\t the   shows  resulted\t in  denial  of\t fresh\tair,
\nventilation and\t cleanliness in\t the cinema halls. The State
\nGovernment was\tsatisfied that\tthese maladies had primarily
\narisen on  account of  five shows  being shown\tin a day. It
\naccordingly published  the draft rule proposing to place the
\nlimit of  four shows  in a  day, and  invited objections.  A
\nnumber of  objections were filed before the State Government
\nto the\tproposed rule,\tby the cinema exhibitors and members
\nof public.  In their  objections the  exhibitors stated that
\nfive shows did not cause any inconvenience to the public and
\nthe restrictions  proposed to  be placed  were\tnot  in\t the
\ninterests of the general public representations were made by
\nthe members  of the  public, submitted\tthat continuance  of
\nfive shows,  one after\tthe other from 10 a.m. On a day to 1
\na.m. Of\t the next  day were  resulting in; (a) heavy rush at
\ntheatres between any two shows as a result of which entering
\ninto and  coming out  of  the  theatres\t had  become  highly
\ninconvenient and  hazardous. (b)  stampede giving  room\t for
\npick-pocketing, (c)  lack of  adequate\ttime  to  clean\t the
\nauditorium and lavatories resulting in unhygienic conditions\n<\/p>\n
(d) lack  of time for exchange of fresh air to foul air, (e)
\ncommencement of\t show even  before cine-goers  can enter the
\nauditorium and take their seats. (fl not exhibiting approved
\nfilms, news-reels  etc. for  want of  time, (g) switching of
\nair-conditioners  coolers,   fans,  exhaust   fans  to\tsave
\nelectricity causing  lot of  discomfort,  and  (h)  creating
\nproblems of  conveyance and  traffic  jam,  over-loading  of
\nbuses etc.  After  considering\tthe  objections,  the  State
\nGovernment was\tsatisfied that\tthe restriction\t as proposed
\nplacing the  limit of  four shows  in a day was necessary in
\nthe interests  of the  general public.\tThe State Government
\nthereupon promulgated  Rule 41-A  placing the  limit of four
\nshows. The  material placed  before the State Government has
\nbeen placed  before the\t Court also. It clearly demonstrates
\nthe necessity  for curtailing  the holding  of five shows to
\nfour   shows   to   remove   the   public   grievance.\t The
\nrepresentation filed on behalf of the public high-\n<\/p>\n
     lighted  the   hazards  to\t  the  public\tsafety,\t and
\ninconvenience caused  to the  members of the public visiting
\nthe cinema halls for entertainment.\n<\/p>\n
525<\/span><\/p>\n
Rule 41-A  was framed to meet the public need, and to secure
\npublic safety  by placing  minimum possible  restrictions on
\nthe licensees.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Sen  appearing for the appellants\/petitioners urged
\nthat Rule  4 I-A was neither necessary nor reasonable as the
\npurpose for  which the Rule 4 I-A was framed could have been
\nachieved if  the  relevant  authorities\t carried  out  their
\nduties in  making inspections and securing the compliance of
\nthe existing Rules. He urged that the impugned Rule does not
\nprescribe the  duration\t of  four  shows  or  the  intervals
\nbetween them  and each\tof one of the reasons set out by the
\nState to justify the impugned Rules, could be fully achieved
\nby the\tenforcement of\tthe existing Rules. We find no merit
\nin these  submissions. Indisputably,  the licensees had only
\n15 hours  in a\tday for the exhibition of films as condition
\nnumber l  l of\tthe licence  prohibits exhibition  of  films
\nbeyond I  a.m. Ordinarily,  no show  of cinema\ttakes  place
\nearlier to 10 a.m. If five shows are permitted within a span
\nof 15  hours commencing\t from 10  a.m. Of a day to I a.m. Of
\nthe next day, it would be impossible to find reasonable time
\nto comply with the requirement of cleanliness and exhibition
\napproved films\tand slides.  The appellants’\/petitioners’  I
\nown case is that one show of cinematograph film consumes two
\nto two\tand a  half hours’  time. They\tfurther\t admit\tthat
\napproved documentary  films and\t slides\t are  exhibited\t for
\nabout ten  minutes, and\t in addition  to that  the licensees
\nexhibit slides\tand commercial\tshots for  about ten minutes
\nand there  is an  interval of  ten minutes  in the middle of
\neach show.  It is further admitted that on the conclusion of
\none show  there\t  was interval of fifteen minutes before the
\ncommencement  of  the  next  show.  Thus  according  to\t the
\nappellants\/petitioners own  case one  show takes about three
\nhours an  i if fifteen minutes interval between one show and
\nother is  credited, the\t total period  of time\trequired for
\nfive   shows\twould\tcome\tto   sixteen\thours.\t The
\nappellants\/petitioners have been commencing their first show
\nat l()\ta.m. and  they assert that they have been completing
\nfive shows before I a.m. the next day in accordance with the
\nconditions of  the licence.  The licensees had fifteen hours
\nat their  disposal for\tholding five shows from 10 a.m. to I
\na.m. the  next day  but in  actual practice  they require at
\nleast sixteen  hours minimum time for holding five shows. lt
\nwas therefore physically impossible to comply with the Rules
\nand the\t licensees were\t bound to  rush through, to complete
\nfive shows  by I  a.m. These  facts are\t eloquent enough  to
\ndemonstrate that  in holding  five shows the licensees could
\nnot exhibit  approved documentaries  and slides and adequate
\nmeasures could\tnot be\ttaken to  ensure public\t safety\t and
\nhealth. If  five shows are held continuously from 10 a.m. to
\nl a.m.\tthe next  day with  an interval\t of fifteen  minutes
\nbetween one show and the other, there would be acute H
\n526<\/span>
\nshortage of  time for  exhibiting approved  films and slides
\nand the\t licensee would certainly be in hurry to exhibit the
\nmain film.  In fifteen minutes interval, it was not possible
\nto get\tthe hall  cleaned or  to allow\tfresh air set in, as
\nduring that  period cine  goers would  rush in to take their
\nseats for  witnessing the  next show. If your shows are held
\nin a day there will be no shortage of time and the licensees
\nwould have  sufficient\ttime  to  comply  with\tthe  various
\nstatutory obligations  as prescribed by the Act and Rules to
\nensure public  safety, health and convenience.. In this view
\nwe have\t no doubt  in our mind that the existing Rules could
\nnot  meet   the\t situation  and\t the  State  Government\t was
\njustified in framing Rule 41-A which serves public interest.
\nAs regards  the grievance  that the State Government has not
\nprescribed any\ttime gap  between  the\tshows  it  has\tbeen
\nasserted in  the counter  affidavit filed  on behalf  of the
\nState that the Government intended to issue further detailed
\ndirections regulating  the time\t gap between  the shows\t and
\nalso for  curtailment of noon show or the mid-night show but
\nbefore these directions could be issued the validity of Rule
\n41-A was  challenged and no further action could be taken in
\nthe matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
\nGovernment stated before us that further instructions in the
\nmatter would  be issued\t by  the  State\t Government.  Having
\nregard to  the facts  and circumstances as discussed earlier
\nwe have\t no doubt in our mind that the restriction placed by
\nRule 41-A  placing  limit  on  the  appellants’\/petitioners’
\nright to exhibit cinematograph films to four shows is in the
\npublic interest.\n<\/p>\n
     The    appellants’\/petitioners’\t contention\tthat
\nrestriction under  Rule 41-A  is unreasonable  is founded on
\nthe premise  that Rule\t41-A is\t not  regulatory  in  nature
\ninstead it  totally prohibits  exhibition  of  cinematograph
\nfilms for one show and its impact is excessive as it reduces
\nappellants’\/petitioners’ income\t to the extent of one-fifth.
\nThe appellants\/petitioners  have no unrestricted fundamental
\nright to  carry\t on  business  of  exhibiting  cinematograph
\nfilms. Their  right to carry on business is regulated by the
\nprovisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. These
\nprovisions are\tnecessary to  ensure public  safety,  public
\nhealth and  other allied  matters. As already discussed Rule
\n41-A has  placed limit\ton  the\t number\t of  shows  which  a
\nlicensee can  hold in  a day.  The Rule\t does  not  prohibit
\nexhibition of cinematograph films instead it regulates it by
\nproviding that\tinstead of five shows only four shows should
\nbe exhibited  in a day. In Narender Kumar v. Union of India,<\/a>
\nthis Court  held that  a law  made in  the  public  interest
\nprohibiting a  business would  be valid as the ‘prohibition’
\nis  only   a   kind   of   ‘restriction’.   The\t  expression
\n“restriction”  includes\t  “prohibition”\t also.\t Rule  41-A.
\nhowever, does not take away the licensees’ right to carry on
\n527<\/span>
\nbusiness  of   exhibiting  cinematograph  films.  It  merely
\nregulates  it.\tNo  rule  or  law  can\tbe  declared  to  be
\nunreasonable merely because there is reduction in the income
\nof a  citizen on  account of the regulation of the business.
\nIn our\topinion, Rule  41-A does  not place any unreasonable
\nrestriction  on\t  the  appellants’\/petitioners’\t fundamental
\nright guaranteed  to them  under Article  19( l)(g)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellants\/petitioners  place
\nreliance  on   a  decision  on\tthe  Mysore  High  Court  in
\nShelvarajen v.\tState of  Mysore. [  1963  ]  I\t Mysore\t Law
\nJournal 28  in support of his contention that Rule 41-A does
\nnot regulate  the exhibition  of cinematograph films instead
\nit is prohibitory in nature and the restriction so placed is
\nnot in\tthe interests  of the general public. Puttaswamy, J.
\nalso relied  upon on  the aforesaid  decision of  the Mysore
\nHigh Court  in\tupholding  the\tappellants’  contention.  In
\nShelvarajen v.\tState of Mysore the petitioner was exhibitor
\nof travelling  cinema show.  His application  for renewal of
\nlicence for  a\tfurther\t period\t of  four  months  had\tbeen
\nrejected by the licensing authority on the ground that under
\nRule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinemas Rules 1953 framed under the
\nHyderabad Cinemas  (Regulation) Act  1952 no  licence for  a
\ntravelling cinema show could be issued more than once during
\nthe same  year for  the same  place. The  petitioner therein
\nchallenged the\tvalidity of  Rule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinema
\nRules 1953  on the  ground that\t the Rule did not carry into
\neffect the provisions of the Act and also on the ground that
\nthe Rule  violated fundamental\tright guaranteed  by Article
\n19( I)(g)  of the  Constitution. The  High Court struck-down
\nRule 67\t on the\t ground\t of  it\t being\tmade  in  excess  of
\nstatutory power\t conferred on the State Government. The High
\nCourt held  that the  Act contained  no prohibition  against
\nmaking of  an application  for licence more than once and it
\ndid  not   confer  power   for\trefusing   to  entertain  of
\nconsidering the application merely on the ground that during
\nthe same  year, the  applicant had been once granted licence
\nfor that purpose. We do not agree with the view taken by the
\nBench, in that case. as in our opinion Rule 67 regulated the
\ngrant of licence in respect of travelling cinemas. We do not
\nconsider it necessary to pursue the matter further as in the
\ninstant case  Rule 41-A\t carries out the purposes of the Act
\nin regulating  the  exhibition\tof  cinematograph  films  in
\nlicensed premises.  In Vishnu Talkies v. State of Bihar, AIR
\n1975 Patna  . A\t Division Bench\t of  the  Patna\t High  Court
\nconsidered the\tvalidity of  Condition 8-B  of\tthe  licence
\nwhich required\ta licensee  to hold only four shows in a day
\nand  it\t  further  directed   that  no\tother  show  in\t any
\ncircumstances without  obtaining the prior permission of the
\nlicensing authority would be
\n528<\/span>
\nallowed. The validity of condition No. 8-B was challenged on
\nthe ground that it was excessive and beyond the purview on
\n the  provisions of  the Act and that it placed unreasonable
\nrestriction on\tthe fundamental\t right\tof  the\t petitioners
\ntherein to  carry on their business. A Division Bench of the
\nPatna High Court after analysing the provisions of the Bihar
\nCinema (Regulation)  Act, held that the condition imposed in
\nthe licence  was sustainable  in view of Section 5(2) of the
\nBihar Act.  Section 5(2) of the Bihar Act conferred power on
\nthe licensing  authority to  grant licence  under the Act on
\nsuch terms and conditions and subject to such restriction as
\nit may\tdetermine. Condition  No. 8-B  was prescribed by the
\nState Government  in exercise  of its  powers under  Section
\nS(2) of\t the Bihar Act. I he Bench held that the restriction
\nplaced, was  in the public interest which was reasonable and
\ntherefore it was saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
\nWe are\tin agreement  with the\tview taken by the Patna High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     In D.K.V.\tPrasad Rao  v. State  of Andhra Pradesh. AIR
\n1984 A.P.  75 validity\tof  Rule  12(3)\t of  Andhra  Pradesh
\nCinemas (regulation)  Rules  1970  fixing  maximum  rate  of
\nadmission  to\tdifferent  classes  in\ta  cinema  hall\t for
\nwitnessing the\tcinematograph films  was challenged  on\t the
\nground\tthat   the  rule  was  beyond  the  purview  of\t the
\nprovisions of  the Andhra  Pradesh Cinemas  (Regulation) Act
\n1955 and  that it  placed unreasonable\trestriction  on\t the
\nfundamental right of the petitioners therein in violation of
\nArticle 19  of the  Constitution. A  Division Bench  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court rejected both the contentions. The
\nCourt held  that since the purpose of Andhra Pradesh Cinemas
\n(Regulation)  Act   was\t to   regulate\tthe   exhibition  of
\ncinematograph films  the State\tGovernment could frame rules
\nto carry  out those  purposes. The  Court observed  that the
\npower to  regulate includes  the power\tto  restrain,  which
\nembraces limitations  and  restrictions\t on  all  incidental
\nmatters connected  with the right to trade or business under
\nthe  existing\tlicence.  Rule\t 12(3)\tregulated  entry  to
\ndifferent classes  to the  cinema hall and it was within the
\nrule making  power of  the State  Government to\t frame\tsuch
\nrule. The  court further  held that  fixing limit of rate of
\nadmission was  an absolute necessity in the  interest of the
\ngeneral public\tand the restriction so placed was reasonable
\nand in\tpublic interest.  On these findings the court upheld
\nthe validity  of the rule. We are in agreement with the view
\ntaken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, we are of the opinion that Rule 41-A is
\nintra vires  the Act  as it  carries out the purposes of the
\nAct and it does not place
\n529<\/span>
\nany  unreasonable   restriction\t in   violation\t of  Article
\n19(1)(g) of the A Constitution. We are in agreement with the
\nmajority opinion  of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal
\nas well as the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
S. L.\t\t\t      Appeals & Petitions dismissed.\n530<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 526, 1988 SCR (2) 511 Author: K Singh Bench: Singh, K.N. (J) PETITIONER: MINERVA TALKIES, BANGALORE & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/01\/1988 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMinerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-06T04:29:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-06T04:29:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\"},\"wordCount\":6221,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\",\"name\":\"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-06T04:29:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-06T04:29:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988","datePublished":"1988-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-06T04:29:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988"},"wordCount":6221,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988","name":"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-06T04:29:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minerva-talkies-bangalore-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-6-january-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 6 January, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147434\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}