In a significant judicial determination on the limits of executive interference with lawful business practices, the Bombay High Court has invalidated Maharashtra’s decade-old directive prohibiting cinema operators from collecting convenience fees for online ticket bookings, citing the absence of statutory authority and violation of constitutional rights.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that the impugned government resolutions (GRs) issued in April 2013 and reaffirmed in March 2014 lacked the force of law and encroached upon the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which assures all citizens the freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
The petitions were instituted by major stakeholders in the entertainment sector, including PVR Ltd, Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd (operator of BookMyShow), and the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India. The petitioners challenged the legal validity of the orders issued by the Maharashtra Revenue Commissioner, contending that the State lacked statutory competence to prohibit the imposition of a convenience fee for online booking services.
The court noted that online ticketing constitutes an ancillary business practice necessitating infrastructure, digital interface, and ongoing technological investment. Given its optional nature, the Bench observed that the consumer retains the choice to engage with physical box office counters, making the imposition of such fees a matter of commercial discretion rather than governmental mandate.
“The impugned orders have the effect of disabling business proprietors from regulating fundamental operational components of their services,” the Court held, adding that such intervention, in the absence of enabling legislation, would have a chilling effect on economic enterprise. The government, the Bench reiterated, cannot impose fetters on commercial freedom by administrative fiat unsupported by statutory foundation.
Crucially, the Court acknowledged that the disputed orders had remained unenforced for nearly a decade due to an interim stay issued in 2014. Consequently, the continued collection of the convenience fee during the pendency of the proceedings did not constitute a breach of any enforceable directive.
The ruling is poised to reinforce the broader principle that administrative discretion must operate within the bounds of legislative sanction and constitutional guarantees. It also affirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding commercial autonomy against regulatory overreach in evolving digital markets.
Source Link
Picture Source :
