Bombay High Court Quashes Maharashtra’s Ban on Cinema Halls Charging Online Ticket Convenience Fees

In a major relief to cinema halls and online ticketing platforms, the Bombay High Court on Thursday struck down a Maharashtra government order that prohibited theatres from levying convenience fees on online ticket bookings, declaring the move unconstitutional and lacking legal backing.

A division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain ruled that the 2013 directive — and a subsequent 2014 order — issued by the state’s Revenue Commissioner were violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to practise any profession or conduct business.

READ ALSO  Delhi High Court Quashes Look Out Circular Against Two Men Linked to 2021 Farmers' Protest

“The impugned government order transgressed the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) granted to the petitioners by prohibiting theatre owners and others from collecting the convenience fees from their customers,” the court observed. “If business owners are not permitted to determine various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt.”

Video thumbnail

The judgment came on petitions filed by PVR Ltd, BookMyShow operator Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd, and the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India, challenging the legality of the state’s orders.

The petitioners argued that online booking is an optional service that requires significant investment in technology and infrastructure. Customers unwilling to pay the convenience fee can still purchase tickets from physical counters, they submitted. The court agreed, holding that the discretion ultimately rests with consumers and that the state cannot interfere with business practices without statutory authority.

READ ALSO  Bombay High Court Rules Wearing Short Skirts and Dancing Provocatively Not Obscene, FIR Quashed

Crucially, the court noted that the government’s orders lacked statutory support and had remained unenforced since July 2014, when the court had stayed their implementation. Theatre owners had continued charging convenience fees during the pendency of the case.

“The government orders… lack statutory basis and therefore cannot justify curtailing the petitioners’ rights under Article 19(1)(g),” the bench ruled.

Ad 20- WhatsApp Banner
READ ALSO  Bombay High Court Criticizes Man for Falsely Claiming Racial Discrimination in Custody Case

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles