2016 (10) TMI 1314 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 11.7.2011 - constitution of fresh committee with the Chief Secretary as Chairperson and with some other members for the purpose of suggesting the factors to be considered while fixing or increasing the rates of tickets in various classes of Cinema Theatres - main grievance of the petitioners herein is that the rates fixed by the Government by the impugned G.O. to the areas like Corporation Municipalities and Grampanchayats are discriminative in nature since the expenditure in all the theatres in Corporations Municipalities and Grampanchayats is one and the same. HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that there are many changed circumstances coupled with the conversion of some of the theatres to that of multi complexes by raising advanced infrastructure and by meeting the highest maintenance of theatres and in view of the same the G.O. does not appear to be proportionate so that it warrants revision in consonance with the changed circumstances as well as the provisions of A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act 1955. Hence the present G.O. challenged in the writ petitions can be set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the interim orders passed by this Court earlier in some of the writ petitions this Court is of the view that the present writ petitions can be disposed of with the directions imposed i) G.O.Ms.No.100 Home (General.A1) Department dated 26.4.2013 is set aside. ii) Both the Governments are directed to constitute their respective committees headed by the respective Principal Secretaries for Home. Insofar as the other members of the Committees are concerned it is left open to the respective Principal Secretaries for Home to choose the exhibitors distributors and other members to participate in the committee so as to adjudicate the issues involved in all the writ petitions. iii) While taking decision the committees are directed to consider the welfare of the cine-goers primarily and also the grievance of the exhibitors and distributors and frame the rules in accordance with law on or before 30.3.2017; iv) If any decisions are taken and any G.O is issued prior to 30.3.2017 the same shall become operative in nature. iv) The petitioners-theatres are permitted to run their respective theatres by collecting their proposed fares. However it is made clear that the petitioners shall inform to the Authorities concerned as to the ticket rates which they intend to collect in respect of all classes till adjudication of the issues in question by the respective committees. v) In some of the writ petitions this Court issued interim orders permitting the petitioners therein to collect the rates as proposed in their applications and to maintain separate account with regard to the difference amount in the rates collected by them. Those interim orders passed by this Court earlier in some of the writ petitions shall stand superseded. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 26.4.2013, regarding cinema ticket pricing.
2. Alleged discrimination in ticket pricing across different areas (Corporations, Municipalities, Gram Panchayats).
3. Compliance with interim orders during the pendency of writ petitions.
4. Changed circumstances post the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 26.4.2013:
The petitioners challenged the validity of G.O.Ms.No.100, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which revised cinema ticket prices and fixed the percentage of seats in the lowest category. The petitioners argued that the 1st respondent deviated from the High Power Committee's recommendations, resulting in an unfair situation where air-conditioned theatres were allowed to charge only Rs. 10 for the lowest class, while non-air-conditioned theatres could also charge Rs. 10. The petitioners contended that this was contrary to the authority under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971.

2. Alleged Discrimination in Ticket Pricing:
The petitioners claimed that the rates fixed by the Government for different areas (Corporations, Municipalities, Gram Panchayats) were discriminatory since the expenditure for maintaining theatres in these areas was the same. They argued that the classification and rates fixed by the Government caused hindrance and financial loss to theatre exhibitors.

3. Compliance with Interim Orders:
During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Court had passed interim orders permitting petitioners to collect proposed rates and maintain separate accounts for the difference in rates collected. The petitioners were directed to inform authorities about the rates they intended to collect and pay taxes proportionate to those rates. The Court noted that these interim orders were being complied with, allowing theatres to operate under the proposed rates while maintaining separate accounts for the difference.

4. Changed Circumstances Post Bifurcation:
The Court acknowledged that the impugned G.O. was issued before the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2013. Both the petitioners' counsel and the Government Pleaders for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh conceded that the G.O. could not be operative in view of the changed circumstances, including the conversion of some theatres into multiplexes with advanced infrastructure. The Court found that the G.O. warranted revision in consonance with the changed circumstances and provisions of the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Court set aside G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 26.4.2013, and directed both the Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh to constitute respective committees headed by their Principal Secretaries for Home. These committees were to include exhibitors, distributors, and other members to address the issues in the writ petitions. The committees were instructed to consider the welfare of cine-goers and the grievances of exhibitors and distributors while framing rules, with a deadline of 30.3.2017 for issuing new G.O.s.

The Court permitted petitioners to continue collecting proposed fares and directed them to inform authorities about ticket rates and pay proportionate taxes. Interim orders allowing collection of proposed rates and maintaining separate accounts for the difference were superseded, with authorities directed to decide on the difference amounts.

Final Disposition:
The writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and all miscellaneous petitions pending were closed. No costs were awarded.