Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has held that cinema theatre owners are prohibited from charging ticket rates exceeding those fixed by the government. The Court directed the Government’s designated Committee to initiate action against any theatre found collecting excess ticket charges and to ensure the refund of such amounts to the affected patrons. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with specific instructions to monitor and enforce the government-fixed cinema ticket pricing regime.

A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against multiple respondents, including government officials and cinema theatre proprietors across Tamil Nadu. The petitioner urged the Court to direct the government authorities, including the Chief Minister’s Special Cell, the Home Department, and the Special Teams for Cinema under the Commissionerate of Land Administration and the Commercial Taxes Department, to act against theatre owners allegedly collecting excessive ticket charges. The complaint particularly related to the practice during the initial days following the release of popular films such as “Vivegam,” wherein theatres reportedly charged patrons more than the permitted ticket prices.

Also Read: NEET-PG 2025 Postponed: Supreme Court Directs Single-Shift Exam to Ensure Fairness and Transparency

The petitioner named 14 government officials and 28 cinema theatre proprietors as respondents, located across Chennai, Krishnagiri, Salem, Madurai, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur, Vellore, Tirunelveli, and other locations. The petitioner sought intervention to curb the “cheating practice” of collecting inflated ticket charges above the government-mandated limits, especially during high-demand periods.

The core contention was that these acts of overcharging amounted to a violation of existing cinema ticket pricing regulations enforced by the state government. The government has, from time to time, issued notifications fixing the maximum permissible rates for cinema tickets, intended to protect consumer interest and prevent exploitative pricing practices.

The petitioner argued that despite such statutory control, several cinema halls were deliberately collecting more than the fixed price, particularly during the first few days after the release of new films. The plea stated that this practice exploited the public and created unfair market conditions.

During the hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, representing respondents 1 to 14, submitted a counter-affidavit filed by the 14th respondent. The affidavit confirmed that the authorities were actively monitoring theatre pricing practices. It was submitted that a Committee had already been constituted for this purpose. This Committee, comprising various officials, undertook periodic inspections of cinema theatres to ensure compliance with the fixed rates and recommended appropriate action when violations were identified.

The counter-affidavit further stated that this Committee was empowered to examine complaints from the public and initiate enforcement steps, including issuance of notices, levying penalties, or directing refunds in cases where overcharging was established. The respondents asserted that they had been discharging these responsibilities diligently and that mechanisms were in place to act against non-compliant theatres.

The petitioner insisted that despite such submissions, enforcement was either ineffective or delayed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner sought a firm directive from the Court to enforce the rules rigorously and put an end to the recurring malpractice of overpricing.

The matter was taken up for final disposal, and the Court examined the submissions of both parties. Based on the affidavits, pleadings, and materials placed on record, the Court proceeded to pronounce its order.

The Court, in its written order, made several clear judicial observations that formed the basis of its ruling.

The Court recorded that “when the Government has fixed a rate which is revised from time to time, the theatre owners cannot fleece the movie goers by collecting excess amount from them.” This principle, in the Court’s view, was integral to ensuring lawful compliance with state-issued price controls and protecting the interest of the general public.

The Court observed that the existing mechanism for enforcement — namely the Committee constituted by the government — had a clear mandate to address such overpricing. The Court stated that “whenever any such practise is followed by the theatres particularly, after the release of a new film, the Committee constituted by the Government shall take steps to initiate action against the concerned theatre owner and direct refund of excess amount collected.”

It was further noted that “They shall also act upon any complaints that is received in this regard.” This observation directed attention to the proactive role expected from the Committee — not only in scheduled inspections but also in taking timely action upon receipt of public complaints.

The Court did not delve into any factual disputes beyond the material on record, nor did it assess the merits of individual allegations against specific theatres. Instead, it issued a general directive aimed at ensuring compliance with legal obligations already in place through government policy.

Importantly, the Court refrained from engaging in commentary about the sufficiency of existing laws or policy directions. It strictly adhered to the legal issue of enforcement of price control on movie tickets and confined its remarks to actionable steps.

No findings were made on the guilt or innocence of any specific theatre operator, and the petition was not converted into a fact-finding inquiry. The focus remained solely on the principle of enforcing government-fixed ticket rates and on strengthening administrative responsiveness.

Also Read: Punjab And Haryana High Court Slams Abuse Of Process | Quashes FIR Against Kin Of Proclaimed Offender Citing No Evidence Of Harbouring To Evade Arrest

The Court issued the following directives:

“In the considered view of this Court, when the Government has fixed a rate which is revised from time to time, the theatre owners cannot fleece the movie goers by collecting excess amount from them. Hence, whenever any such practise is followed by the theatres particularly, after the release of a new film, the Committee constituted by the Government shall take steps to initiate action against the concerned theatre owner and direct refund of excess amount collected.”

The Court further directed: “They shall also act upon any complaints that is received in this regard.”

With these directions, the writ petition was formally disposed of. The Court stated:

“This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Devarajan

For the Respondents: Mr. E. Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: G. Devarajan v. The Special Tahsildar, Chief Minister's Special Cell and Others

Case Number: W.P. No. 22844 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 25472 of 2017

Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

[Read/Download order]