1984 PLP 3361 (CLC)
IDRAR ASGHAR‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 3361 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IDRAR ASGHAR‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 3361 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 3361 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 3361 (CLC) (IDRAR ASGHAR‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pir S. A. Rashid for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Asstt. A.‑G. alongwith Sadiq Ayaz Lodhi for Respondent.
- 5. I have heard Pir S. A. Rashid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Assistant Advocate‑General, alongwith Mr. Sadiq Hayat Lodhi, Advocate who entered appearance in response to a notice issued by the Court.
- 8. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General in reply has placed on record copy of Notification, dated 14th March, 1983 whereby District Magistrates of the respective Districts have been specified as Licensing Authorities for purposes of Chapter 3 of Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. This Notification has been issued by Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers conferred on him by proviso to subsection (2) of section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordi nance, 1979. In view of this specification under Notification, dated 14th March, 1983, learned Assistant Advocate‑General, contended that the District Magistrate now had full powers to order cancellation or suspension of the licence under rule 111 of Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976 read with section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1.979. Apart from the Rules, it has been contended that the Licensing Authority has full powers to order suspension or cancellation of the licence if breach of the conditions subject to which licence was granted, has taken place or the Rules framed or deemed to have been framed under the Ordinance are violated by the licenser. Section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 provides additional penalty and source of powers to the Licensing Authority. As regards opportunity of hearing learned Assistant Advocate‑General has contended that recovery of blue‑films by the management, as is evident from the order of learned District Magistrate, was not denied. What the picture contained is fully evident from the observations of learned ‑District Magistrate who himself viewed the reel in company of Superintendent of Police on 28th May, 1984. There is no reason to disbelieve or discredit the observations made by the Head of the District Administration. The petitioners were fully heard and they were given the chance to submit their explanation also. In view of this, learned Assistant Advocate‑General contended that Rule of Natural Justice in the facts and circumstances of this case has not at all been infringed. As regards precedent case of Saboor Khan v. District Magistrate Gujranwala, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the ratio underlying the precedent was that powers as Licensing Authority had as such not been delegated to the District Magistrate and, therefore, the action taken by the District Magistrate was struck down. Paragraph 16 of the judgment reproduced below was relied upon by learned Assistant Advocate‑General to support his contention :‑
- 9. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submitted that in deference to the judgment of this Court, Government in exercise of its powers under proviso to subsection (2) of section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 has specified District Magistrates of respective districts to be Licens ing Authority within their respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the legal snag pointed out in the judgment of this Court has since been removed and now the District Magistrates are fully competent to deal with the subject under rule 111 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976 read with section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Viewing the matter in the light of delegation of powers, learned Assistant Advocate‑General has contended that the order passed by learned District Magistrate, Gujrat, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Maintainability of writ petition has also been questioned on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. It has been contended by learned Assistant Advocate‑General that direct approach to this Court for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction without first exhausting the remedies provided under law disentitles the petitioner to exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, for there is no plausible reason to bypass the normal functionaries who have been given powers to decide controversies in appeal or revision etc.
- 10. As regards the last contention of learned Assistant Advocate‑JA General relating to availability of an alternate remedy suffice it to say that the adequacy of the alternate remedy ought to be viewed or judged in the terms of comparative speed, expense, convenience and effectiveness involved in the case relief is allowed by the High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. General Rule, of course, is that the High Court would decline to issue high prerogative writs in cases where alternative and equally effica cious remedies are available under law but then it does not mean that there is any constitutional bar to the High Court in exercising such a jurisdiction or authority. Nor is the rule of alternate remedy inflexible. The fact that the High Court will ordinarily decline to step in where an alternative remedy is available is not due to want of jurisdiction but for reasons of expediency. Each case, therefore, is to be decided in the light of its own facts and' circumstances. In the instant case, since the vires of rule 111 of the Cinematograph Rules, 1976 vis‑a‑vis the provisions of Motion Pictures Ordi nance, 1979 is under challenge, I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to decline exercise of jurisdiction on this ground alone. Even otherwise, both learned counsel have addressed lengthy arguments on merits of the case in the light of which I propose to dispose of the writ petitions on their own merits.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 9‑Motion Pictures Ordinance (XLIII of 1979)‑Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976, r. 11I‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑ Remedy by way of appeal or revision under law available to peti tioner‑Vires of r. 111 of Cinematograph Rules, 1976 and provi sions of Ordinance, 1979 under challenge in petition‑High Court did not decline to exercise jurisdiction on sole ground that remedy by way of appeal or revision was available to petitioner.‑[Jurisdic tion‑Appeal (civil)‑Revision (civil)].
Judgment & Decree
9. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submitted that in deference to the judgment of this Court, Government in exercise of its powers under proviso to subsection (2) of section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 has specified District Magistrates of respective districts to be Licens ing Authority within their respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the legal snag pointed out in the judgment of this Court has since been removed and now the District Magistrates are fully competent to deal with the subject under rule 111 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976 read with section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Viewing the matter in the light of delegation of powers, learned Assistant Advocate‑General has contended that the order passed by learned District Magistrate, Gujrat, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Maintainability of writ petition has also been questioned on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. It has been contended by learned Assistant Advocate‑General that direct approach to this Court for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction without first exhausting the remedies provided under law disentitles the petitioner to exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, for there is no plausible reason to bypass the normal functionaries who have been given powers to decide controversies in appeal or revision etc.
10. As regards the last contention of learned Assistant Advocate‑JA General relating to availability of an alternate remedy suffice it to say that the adequacy of the alternate remedy ought to be viewed or judged in the terms of comparative speed, expense, convenience and effectiveness involved in the case relief is allowed by the High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. General Rule, of course, is that the High Court would decline to issue high prerogative writs in cases where alternative and equally effica cious remedies are available under law but then it does not mean that there is any constitutional bar to the High Court in exercising such a jurisdiction or authority. Nor is the rule of alternate remedy inflexible. The fact that the High Court will ordinarily decline to step in where an alternative remedy is available is not due to want of jurisdiction but for reasons of expediency. Each case, therefore, is to be decided in the light of its own facts and' circumstances. In the instant case, since the vires of rule 111 of the Cinematograph Rules, 1976 vis‑a‑vis the provisions of Motion Pictures Ordi nance, 1979 is under challenge, I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to decline exercise of jurisdiction on this ground alone. Even otherwise, both learned counsel have addressed lengthy arguments on merits of the case in the light of which I propose to dispose of the writ petitions on their own merits.
10. The Cinematograph Act (II of 1918) regulating exhibition by means of Cinematographs was enacted on 8th March, 1918, with statement of objects and reasons which I am tempted to quote below :‑ "The Bill is designed to ensure proper control of cinematograph exhibi tions with particular regard to the safety of these attending them and to prevent the presentation to the public of improper or objectionable films. The existing law of the country contains certain scattered provisions affecting such exhibitions, and certain local enactments also bear on the subject ; but the rapid growth in the popularity of cinema tograph and increasing number of such exhibitions in India have rendered these provisions inadequate for the protection of the public from indecent or otherwise objectionable representations. Further, the special danger from fire, which attends cinematograph exhibitions, as has been illustrated by terrible catastrophes due to this cause in other countries, rendered it important to secure, in the interest of safety of spectators a proper regard to the structural conditions of the premises utilised. The Bill accordingly provides that no exhibition shall be given except in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the prescribed authority. The licence is intended to ensure that the intentions of the Act are complied with and that adequate precautions are taken for safety of persons attending the exhibition which it covers. The Bill also provides for the constitution of an authority which will be required to pass all films intended for exhibition in this country and which will have power to refuse the necessary certificate in the case of any film the production of which in public is open to objection for the reasons already given. The Bill includes the ordinary rule‑making provisions and enables the Local Governments to exempt any cinema to graph exhibition, or class of cinematograph exhibitions from any provisions of law. Finally it makes provision for the punishment of offences against the Act or the rules made thereunder."
11. Section 2 of the Act is a definition section, section 3 provides for licence and section 4 deals with powers of Licensing Authority. Under section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, District Magistrate was the Licensing Authority. Section 6 of the Act provide punishment for contraven tion of this Act and the Rules made thereunder. In case of conviction, the convicting Court was given power to forfeit the film. Rules under section 18 of Cinematograph Act, 1918 were framed in the year 1941, known as Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1941. Rule 8 of Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1941 dealt with suspension or revocation of a licence by the Licensing Authority, for facility of reference, the said Rule is quoted below :‑
8. The Licensing Authority may at any time revoke or suspend a licence granted by him for any breach of these Rules or of the con ditions of the licence or for any reason recorded by him in writing." Therefore, under Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1941, the Licensing Authority i. e. the District Magistrate had full authority to revoke or suspend a licence for breach of conditions of the licence or the Rules. Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1941 were replaced by West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules, 1962. Parallel provision of rule 8 was made in rule 11 of 1962 Rules, which is quoted below for ready reference :‑ "11. (1) The District Magistrate may at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing, revoke or suspend a licence granted by a licensing authority for any breach of these rules or the conditions of the licence. (2) The District Magistrate may issue such directions or instruction to the licensee as may be considered necessary to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passersby in the vicinity of the licensed premises or for the maintenance of public safety and public order. (3) In the event of any outbreak or apprehended outbreak of expidemic the District Magistrate may, after consulting the district health authorities, direct‑ (a) the total closure of any licensed premises for a specified number of days ; (b) a reduction in the scale of accommodation prescribe for licensed premises under rule 37 or 97 as may be applicable ; and (c) the adoption of special measures for the disinfections of the licensed premises, including spraying and fumigation. (4) The licensee shall be bound to comply forthwith with any direc tions issued under sub‑rules (2) and (3), and on his failure to do so, his licence shall be liable to revocation or suspension." Rules 1962 held the field till these were substituted by the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976. Power of suspension or cancellation of licence here again was given to the District Magistrate under rule 11 I of Rules, 1976. Since the said Rule is subject‑matter of interpretation, I deem it proper to quote below the said rule for proper appreciation of the contention of learned counsel for the parties:- "
111. Suspension or cancellation of licence.‑‑(1) The District Magis trate may at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing, revoke or suspend a licence granted by a licensing authority for any breach of these rules or the conditions of the licence Provided that the licensee may within thirty days of the communication of such decision to him, appeal against it to the Commissioner of the Division whose decision shall be final ; (2) The District Magistrate may issue such directions or instructions to the licensee as may be considered necessary to prevent any obstruc tion, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents of passersby in the vicinity of the licensed promises or for the maintenance of public safety and public order. (3) In the event of any outbreak or apprehended outbreak of an epidemic, the District Magistrate may, after consulting the District Health Authorities, direct‑ (a) the total closure of any licensed premises for specified number of days ; (b) a reduction in the scale of accommodation prescribed for licensed premises under rule 17 or 99 as may be applicable ; and (c) the adoption of special measures for the disinfections of the licensed premises, including spraying and fumigation. (4) The licensee shall be bound to comply forthwith with any directions issued under sub‑rules (2) and (3) and on his failure to do so, his licence shall be liable to revocation or suspension." The Cinematograph Act, 1918 was replaced by a new Ordinance known as the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 (XLIII of 1979) which came into force on 3rd September, 1979. Rules under the present Ordinance, it is admitted, have not so far been framed by the Rule‑making Authority. Con sequently, previous Rules of 1976 subject to inconsistency were saved and continued under section 21 of Ordinance, 1979 read with section 24 of the General Clauses Act. Distinct from the provisions of section 4 of the repealed Cinematograph Act, 1918 where District Magistrate was the Licensing Authority, power to grant licence under the new Ordinance rested with the Provincial; Government as Licensing Authority. However, under proviso to subsection (2) of section 13 Provincial Government could by Notification specify for the whole or part of the Province such other authority as it may deem proper to be the Licensing Authority, for the purposes of the Chapter (Chapter 3) of the Ordinance. Presumably in view of this conflict, rule 111 (1) of Punjab Cinematograph Rules was found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the main Ordinance 1979, by this Court in the case of Saboor Khan v. District Magistrate, Gujranwala.
12. Notification, dated 14th March, 1983 has now specified District Magistrate of the District to be Licensing Authority in respect of his District for purposes of Chapter 3 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. After this delegation, District Magistrate in the capacity of a Licensing Authority is possessed of powers and jurisdiction both to suspend or cancel the licence if the licensee is proved to have committed the breach of conditions governing the continuance of the licence or has in any manner violated the Rules. The authority which had power to grant licence is also possessed of the powers to suspend and revoke, of course, subject to the establishment of conditions rendering suspension or cancellation neces sary. The Licensee under the Schedule of conditions is not permitted to put on screen an uncertified film, moreso a real nude and obscene in character. It may be appreciated that cinemas are providing entertainment to cinemagoers and tax to the exchequer besides income to the licensee. Licensses of cinemas cannot be allowed to destroy the moral fiber of movie viewers comprising men and women of various ages including young children of impressionable minds who as a result of stress and strains of life, in search for relaxation visit these entertainment places. Blue‑films put on screen with regular films to provide an excuse to make up entertainment for a short period do extensive damage to moral values deeply cheri shed by our society. Young generation which has to shoulder heavy respon sibility in the world of tomorrow cannot be allowed to be destroyed by those whose main aim in life may be sheer mammon worship. After all every citizen and inhabitant of this country owes heavy responsibility not only unto himself but to the State also, to perverse its cultural heritage, and values which were the motive force for bringing it into being. Screening of blue films in cinemas have serious deleterious effects on moral growth of the people. These observations I have been constrained to make only to meet the argument that the action of the District Magistrate was not tampered with leniency.
13. As a result of foregoing discussion, I find that the order passed by learned District Magistrate, Gujrat suspending licence of the petitioner for a total period of six months through two distinct and separate orders does not suffer from any error of law, calls for interference in writ jurisdiction. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed,