Per Narayana Rai Kudoor, J.
The impugned Rule undoubtedly imposes a restriction on the licensees to exhibit not more than four cinematograph shows in a day. The element of restriction or restraint is inherent both in regulative measures as well as prohibitive or preventive measures ....The term ' prohibit' postulates negative command. Thus, from the meaning of ' regulate' and ' prohibit ' it is clear that the element of restriction is found in both but it varies only in degree.... It would therefore be reasonable to deduce that the word 'regulation' is a word of broad import having wide meaning comprehending all facts not only specifically enumerated in the Act but also embrace within its fold the powers incidental to the regulation envisaged in good faith with a view solely to the public welfare. Court has to recognise this power of the Government in public interest ........ The Rule does not either prohibit or prevent the licensees from exhibiting cinematograph shows in any day. On the other hand, his right to exhibit cinematograph shows every day is not taken away but continued subject to the condition of exhibiting not more than four cinematograph shows in a day. It only regulates the exhibition of cinematograph shows in a day, that is, not more than four shows.
Merely because a licence given to exhibit cinematograph shows, it does not mean that the licensee could exhibit films all the 24 hours of the day. He is required to exhibit the cinematograph shows in an orderly manner, more suitable in the interest of the general public. There is no provision either in the Act or, in the Rules restricting the number of shows in a day. The only restriction imposed upon the licensees about the exhibition of films shows, before the impugned Rule came to be framed was condition No. 11 of the licence that no cinematograph exhibition shall continue after 1 a.m. In that view, the impugned Rule which places restriction upon the licensees to exhibit not more than 4 shows in a day cannot be said to be unreasonable.... Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the context in which the impugned Rule was made and considering the nature of the trade or business carried on by the Petitioners, the impugned Rule Cannot be said to be so unreasonable as to take it out of the purview of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. Consequently it follows that the impugned Rule does not contravene Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution.
Impugned Rule valid as it is for the purpose of the Act and within the competence of the Rule - making - authority and not violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution.
In view of divergence, questions of law arising for determination referred to Rama Jois, J.
(1) Whether Rule 41A of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules framed by Government under Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) was for purposes of the Act or not ?
(2) Whether Rule 41A was violative of Article 19 of the Constitution or not ?
Per Rama Jois, J.
18th September 1984
(i) On consideration of the object and purpose for the achievement of which the Rule is framed, the Rule is for the purpose of the Act as discernible from the provisions of the Act Preamble, Sections 6(2), 8(b), 12, 19(2)(2), 19(2)(d) and (e)j and therefore, inuavires.
(ii) Every one of the grounds which persuaded the Government to make the Rule are intended to remedy the mischief resulting from having as many as five shows within a span of 15 hours and to ensure the health, safety, convenience and comfort of the one-goers, who constitute the very source of income of the Petitioners' business. Therefore the restriction imposed under Rule41A is in public interest...... When there is a clash between public interest and individual right, the latter must yield to the former.
Rule 41A held valid concurring with Kudoor J, and disagreeing with Puttaswamy, J.