K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order. ( 2 ) ALL the petitioners are exhibitors of films in their respective permanent/touring theatres licensed under the Karnataka cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 and the rules framed thereunder and are exigible to taxes under the Karnataka Entertainments tax Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 30 of 1958) and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules ). ( 3 ) PRIOR to 31. 3. 1967 Rule 20 of the rules directed the issue of tickets by theatres in two folios of a original and a duplicate. On 31. 3. 1967 Rule 20 was amended by Government and sub-rule (3) and Form No. IV-A were introduced requiring the printing of tickets in triplicate consisting of a original, a duplicate and a triplicate. At that stage, many theatre owners approached this Court in Writ Petition no. 431 of 1968 and connected cases challenging the validity of the said amendment on diverse grounds, in which this Court stayed its operation also. ( 4 ) BEFORE those cases came up for hearing, there was a conference between the theatre owners and the Commissioner of commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the commissioner), the Head of the Department administering the Act, representing Government, in which they agreed to continue the earlier arrangement and not to enforce the said amended rule. On that understanding and agreement, the petitioners in those cases filed a memo before this Court with withdraw the said writ petitions, which was also signed by the Government Advocate. On the said joint memo filed, this Court made an order on 19. 2. 1970 dismissing those writ petitions as not pressed. With that, at any rate till 30. 6. 1967 the arrangement prevailing prior to 31. 3. 1967, continued satisfactorily serving the needs of the State and the trade also. ( 5 ) BUT, as a sequal to the amendments made to the Act from 1st July 1972 enhancing the rates of taxes, the Commissioner in addition to insisting on printing fresh tickets, directed their printing in triplicate of Form-IV A stipulated in Rule 20 of the Rules. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging Rule 20 in so far as it requires the printing of triplicate tickets only. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging Rule 20 in so far as it requires the printing of triplicate tickets only. As before, the petitioners do not challenge the printing of tickets in duplicate, one original and the other duplicate, or the counterfoil. ( 6 ) SO far as the printing of triplicate tickets, the petitioners have urged that the same was in contravention of the earlier understanding and agreement between the theatre owners and Government. Secondly, the petitioners have urged that such printing resulting in waste of valuable paper and printing without really serving any earthly purpose was arbitrary, irrational and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Lastly, the petitioners have urged that the same places an unreasonable restriction and interferes with their freedom of trade and business guaranteed under article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution. ( 7 ) IN justification of the impugned rule and their action, the respondents have not filed their return. ( 8 ) SRI E. G. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that it was not open to the respondents to insist on the printing of triplicate copy of the ticket contrary to the agreement between the theatre owners and Government and the order made by this Court thereto on the joint memo. ( 9 ) SRI L. M. Pandurangaswamy, learned high Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, contends that the petitioners who were not parties to the previous proceedings, cannot claim the benefit of the earlier agreement and the order made by this Court. ( 10 ) SRI Sridharan does not dispute that the petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings, the undertaking and the order made by this Court. When that is so, on a strictly legalistic construction, the petitioners cannot contend that there was a violation of the earlier undertaking and the order made by this Court. I find it difficult to uphold this contention of the petitioners. ( 11 ) AN examination of the memo filed before this Court and the order made thereto appears to suggest that the petitioners in the earlier proceedings, were agitating the matter for themselves and the other theatre owners almost as a general question in the State and that is how Government also understood and did not enforce the impugned rule for more than a decade. In this view, Government and the Commissioner would have done well in honouring the earlier understanding and avoiding this needless litigation before this Court. But, notwithstanding this, it is necessary to examine the challenge to the impugned rule on its merits. ( 12 ) SRI Sridharan, contends that Rule 20 of the Rules in so far as it requires the printing of a triplicate copy is arbitrary, irrational and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 13 ) SRI Pandurangaswamy contends that the requirement to print a triplicate was intended to avoid evasion of taxes under the Act and was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) FROM Form-IV A prescribed by sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules or any other provision in the Act or the Rules. the necessity for printing the triplicate copy cannot be gathered. The triplicate copy, a protype copy of the duplicate is also required to be destroyed after 24 hours under Rule 26 (2) of the Rules, does hot really achieve any purpose much less the purpose of preventing evasion of taxes under the Act. The one and the only purpose, it serves is the use of valuable printing paper and additional printing to the theatre owner resulting in waste and expenditure only. Except for this, the triplicate copy of the ticket does not achieve any other purpose. ( 15 ) AS to how evasion of taxes under the Act can be prevented or checked by insisting on the printing of triplicate copy is not explained by the State. A mere dogmatic statement that evasion of taxes is sought to be prevented or can be checked by insisting on the printing of a triplicate copy does not really take us any further. Even after a careful examination of Form iv-A, the triplicate form and the submissions made by Sri Pandurangaswamy, I find it difficult to hold that the triplicate copy will in any way be helpful in preventing evasion of taxes under the Act. After all there must be some rationale, reason or purpose in insisting on the printing of triplicate copy even for the purpose of preventing or checking the evasion of taxes, which is totally absent. From this it follows that the requirement of printing a triplicate copy is clearly arbitrary, irrational and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. After all there must be some rationale, reason or purpose in insisting on the printing of triplicate copy even for the purpose of preventing or checking the evasion of taxes, which is totally absent. From this it follows that the requirement of printing a triplicate copy is clearly arbitrary, irrational and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) IN the light of my above discussion, i strike down From No. IV-A prescribed by sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules in so far as the same requires the printing of triplicate copy only and not the other portions of that form which requires the printing of an original and a duplicate copy. ( 17 ) WRIT petitions are disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the cases, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .