' Writ Petition No, 2512 of 1984 and Writ Petition No, 2510 of 1984 raise identical question of facts which and law for decision can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
2. Writ Petition No, 2512 of 1984 challenges the order, dated 29th May, 1984 passed by District Magistrate, Gujrat, suspending licence for exhibition of films in Sangeet Cinema for a period of four months. Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the present controversy as stated are that on receiving secret information about screening of blue-films in the local Sangeet Cinema, a Raiding Party headed by Mr. Fida Hussain Aafridi, Assistant Commissioner (under training) accompanied by Khalid Mahmood, Naib-Qasid and Rashid Ahmad, Constable No, 760, conducted a raid at about 6 p. m. On 30th April, 1984 on the said Sangeet Cinema and found that an uncertified film was also on exhibition alongwith the English Film "Evenings of New York", which was on regular screening. Since the uncertified reel contained some indecent and obscene dances, projection room was raided and the relevant blue-film was recovered therefrom. As a result of the abovesaid raid, District Magistrate Gujrat on 16th May, 1984 issued a show-cause notice calling upon Mr. Abrar Asghar Proprietor and Shabbir Ahmad Manager of Sangeet Cinema to explain as to why action under rule 111 of Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976 be not taken against them.
Explanation was ordered to reach within seven days and the above-said persons were also ordered to put in personal appearance on 24th May, 1984. In pursuance to the show-cause notice issued and served upon the management, they submitted a reply on 23rd May, 1984. In reply, recovery of the blue-film was not disputed. However, it was stated that as English feature film was of shorter duration, therefore, some additional reels of Urdu and Punjabi songs alongwith dances were obtained by them from their distributors to make up entertainment of three hours duration for the movie-viewers. The management took the plea that they were not at all aware of the nature of the songs and dances contained in the uncertified film or that it contained any filthy nude or obscene material. With this explanation, leniency was prayed for with undertaking that management will be careful in future. Learned District Magistrate after going through the explanation, hearing the management and himself viewing the reel found that songs and dances in Urdu and Punjabi were highly filthy, obscene and nude. In view of this observation, learned District Magistrate, Gujrat vide his order, dated 29th May, 1984 suspended the licence for a period of four months.
3. Facts as emerge from the other Writ Petition No, 2510/84 briefly stated are that on receiving information that local Sangeet Cinema was exhibiting blue-film, a surprise raid under the supervision of Mr. Lal Muhammad Chauhan, Magistrate, 1st Class, Gujrat, accompanied by Syed Abdur Rehman, Inspector, Police Station Saddar, Gujrat, and Syed Ahmad Hussain, Film Inspector, Central Board of Film Censors, was conducted at about 11-00 a. m. On 13th May, 1984. It was found that an uncertified film reel was also exhibited alongwith the regular English Film "Eye for an Eye". As a result of raid, blue-film was recovered from the projection room. Learned District Magistrate, Gujrat on 16th May, 1984 issued a show-cause notice calling upon the Management of the Cinema to explain as to why action under rule 111 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976 be not taken against them. The Management was asked to submit explanation within seven days of the receipt of the show-cause notice and further directed to appear personally before learned District Magistrate on 25th May, 1984. Explanation was tendered by the Management wherein recovery of the blue-film was not denied. However, it was stated that they had obtained some additional reels of Urdu and Punjabi songs alongwith dances from their distributors to make up entertainment of three hours duration for the benefit of the viewers as the English Film was of shorter duration.
Learned District Magistrate, after examining the explanation, hearing the Management and himself viewing uncertified reel, came to the conclusion that the actions shown in the blue-films were nude, obscene and filthy and were highly provocative for sexual activity in their most objectionable form. Consequently, vide his order, dated 29th May, 1984 he suspended the licence for a period of two months, thus making a total suspension period of six months.
4. Action of the learned District Magistrate, Gujrat in suspending the Cinematograph Licence for a period of six months, through two impugned orders, has been challenged, on similar grounds, in these two constitutional petitions. The grounds taken to assail the orders of learned District Magistrate are as follows :-
(i) That no inquiry whatsoever has been held by respondent No, 1 (District Magistrate) before passing the impugned order (Annexure B).
(ii) That respondent No, 1 and no authority of law to revoke the licence of the petitioner, as no such jurisdiction has been entrusted to respondent No, 1 under the law.
(iii) That the impugned order passed by respondent No, 1 is altogether void and being without jurisdiction, ultra vires of Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 and the Rules.
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.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned District Magistrate, as such, had no jurisdiction to order suspension or cancellation of the licence under rule 111 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976. In the absence of proper delegation of powers to act as Licensing Authority under section 13 of Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, learned District Magistrate was not vested with any power or jurisdiction to order cancellation or suspension of licence under rule 111 of Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976. Learned counsel contended that so far, Provincial Government, which is a Licensing Authority under section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 has not delegated its powers to the District Magistrate. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the case of Saboor Khan v. District Magistrate, Gujranwala (1). Strictly in the alternative, learned counsel contended that if delegation of powers has taken place, even then, neither the Licensing Authority (Provincial Government) nor its delegatee could deal with the subject of suspension or cancellation of petitioner's licence unless as a result of a regular trial, a conviction was recorded against the Management and thereafter alone the licence could be revoked. For this proposition, learned counsel relied on section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. In brief contention of the learned counsel is that cancellation and suspension can follow conviction only as is clear from section 18 of the Ordinance, 1979. Even on the assumption of commission of breach of conditions of licence or Cinematograph Rules, Licence can neither be suspended nor cancelled unless the breach or the infraction of Rules is held proved and the delinquent is found guilty before a competent Court of jurisdiction as envisaged by above-stated provisions of law contained in section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Learned counsel elaborating his point stated that the Licensing Authority itself cannot suspend or cancel the licence in the absence of a conviction.
This embargo on the powers of Licensing Authority has been imposed by the statute itself.
Therefore, even if the petitioners are proved to have committed violation of the Rules or breach of conditions of licence, matter can only be decided by a Court under section 18 of the Ordinance and thereafter question relating to suspension or revocation of licence by the Licensing Authority can be taken up. In nutshell the argument is that till such time that a final conviction is recorded under section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, the petitioner is free to exhibit uncertified films including blue-films with impunity and his licence cannot be touched by the Licensing Authority or its delegatee. What the Licensing Authority could not directly do, could not be done indirectly by its delegatee 1. e. The District Magistrate.
7. It has been further contended that the learned District Magistrate has not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to the management to prove their version. In this way, they are stated to have been Condemned unheard.
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 Ordinance, 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, 1979. 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
(1) PLD 1981 Lab. 495 ' 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 :- "16. It is thus evident from the above, that while the District Magistrate, may inspect or cause a cinema to be inspected, yet he being not the Licensing Authority or its delegate, cannot exercise authority conferred on him under rule 111 (1). Para. 11 above show that no power to grant a licence has been delegated to him by the Provincial Government, under section 13 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Therefore, though he has the power to authorise any officer to inspect any cinema in his district, under rule 81, yet he cannot himself revoke or suspend a licence under rule 111 (1), for breach of any rule or condition of the licence. This is further supported from the power of revocation delegated to him under section 18 (4).
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 Licensing 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 -IA 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 efficacious 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 Ordinance, 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, B 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 exhibitions 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 cinematograph 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 thiscountry 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 cinematograph 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 contravention 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 conditions 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 instructions 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 epidemic 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 disinfection 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."
' 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 111 of Rules, 1976. Since the said Rule is subject-matter of interpretation, I deem it proper to uote below the said rule for proper appreciation, of the contention of earned counsel for the parties :- "111. Suspension or cancellation of licence.-(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 : ' 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 obstruction, 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 disinfection 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.
Consequently, 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, 1919. 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 I also possessed of the powers to suspend and revoke, of course, subject to the establishment of conditions rendering suspension or cancellation necessary. 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 fibre 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 cherished by our society. Young generation which has to shoulder heavy responsibility 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.