Back
High Court Of Delhi
BALWINDAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION - Respondent
Civil 2491 of 1983
Decided On : 02/08/1984
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT - SECTION 10 - VIDEO AND TELEVISION - EXHIBITION OF FILMS - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS - REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON TRADE - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owned a video set (VCR) and a television set with commercial licenses for both. He used these sets in a commercial shop to display films, charging an entrance fee. The respondents, claiming that the petitioner needed a license under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to exhibit films, sought to interfere with the petitioner's shows.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's actions constituted an exhibition of films, which required a license under the Cinematograph Act. The court also held that the restrictions imposed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, and thus did not violate the petitioner's right to carry on a lawful trading activity under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's use of video and television sets to display films constituted an exhibition of films requiring a license under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the Cinematograph Act and the rules framed thereunder were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, and thus did not violate the petitioner's right to carry on a lawful trading activity under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "cinematograph" in Section 2(c) of the Cinematograph Act to include video and television sets, either jointly or severally, as apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. 2. The court held that the phrase "give an exhibition" in Section 10 of the Cinematograph Act referred to making it possible for others to see a film, as opposed to merely viewing a film. 3. The court found that the restrictions imposed by the Cinematograph Act and the rules framed thereunder were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, as they addressed concerns such as health, sanitation, crowding, and safety.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's actions constituted an exhibition of films requiring a license under the Cinematograph Act and that the restrictions imposed by the Act and the rules were reasonable and did not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights.
( 1 ) A large number of petitions have been filed in this Court which raise the identical questions of law. In some petitions rule nisi has been issued while in some others notice to show cause why rule nisi be not issued has been ordered. There are still some more which had been directed to stand over. We ordered listing of a good many petitions on the same day so that we may have the benefit of hearing as many counsel as possible on behalf of the petitioners.
( 2 ) BY and large, the facts of all the cases are that same and the points of law raised are identical. We, therefore, proceed to notice the facts of this case and in the light of those facts decide the question of law.
( 3 ) "the petitioner owns a Video set (commonly known as V. C. R. \v. C. P.) and also a Television set. He has taken out commercial licences for the Video set and the television set as opposed to licences for domestic purposes. He has also paid the higher licence fee postulated for taking out a commercial licence. According to him, he has hired a commercial shop bearing No. 770 in Jheel Khuranja, Delhi where he has installed the aforesaid television and video sets. He uses these two for displaying films and charges entrance fee of Rs. 2 per show per head inclusive of entertainment tax. The sitting capacity of the shop is 25. According to him some viewers sit on benches while others sit on the floor.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he conducted the shows from September 25, 1983 to September 13, 1983. He admits that he is liable to pay entertainment tax as held by the Supreme Court in a group of petitions, by its judgement dated September, 5, 1983 in M/s. Geeta Enterprises and others v. State of U. P. and Others (1 ). Petitioner says that he earns his livelihood by running the above video shows but he is being restrained from doing so on account of the alleged illegal interference by the respondents who are insisting that he most take out a licence under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 before he can exhibit films in his premises. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ of prohibition to the respondents from interfering in the video shows that he is holding. He further contends that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 would not be applicable to the displaying or exhibiting of video casset films and the relevant provisions relied upon by the respondents would also be ultra vires his fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
( 5 ) THE respondents have filed an affidavit sworn by Shri R. P. Mishra, Deputy Commissioner of Police (licencing) Police Head Quarters, New Delhi by way of return. He contended that the penal provisions of the Cinematograph Act are attracted to exhibiting of video films in the manner in which the petitioner is exhibiting the same. Inasmuch as, it is averred, the petitioner is exhibiting video films in contravention off Section 10 of the Cinematograph Act, the respondents are entitled to take all necessary legal action as is available to them for the said alleged violation. They pray that the rule be discharged and petition dismissed.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner the first contention is that inasmuch as the petitioner holds commercial licences for both the video and the television, he can make commercial use of the same, which will include exhibiting of films.
( 7 ) THE commercial licences of the petitioner have been issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. These licences have been issued on the conditions printed in the licences themselves. Printed condition No. I lays down that this licence permits the use of the Wireless Receiving Apparatus described therein in business premises, public places, rooms used jointly for residential and business purposes, or for gain, or for the benefit of passengers or for advertisement in public vehicles on roads or railways for receiving programmes and messages transmitted for general reception. Condition 12 reads as unde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
