The main legal point established in the judgment is that film exhibitors are bound to pay rental charges as a mandatory condition contained in the license to comply with the government's directions, and the rental charges are justified by the heavy expenditure incurred by the Films Division in producing and distributing the films.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.17729 of 1999 dated 211. 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.

(a) Appellant is a registered association of Film Exhibitors in the state of Tamil Nadu. Under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act, 1955, read with Rule 41(2), the exhibitors should make arrangements with the State and Central Governments, at each performance, to exhibit the short films produced by the State or Central Government. For renewal of C form licence also the Exhibitors should confirm with the above regulation. The Exhibitors were paying rental charges to the respondents for exhibiting the short films as part of the condition, which is calculated as a fixed percentage of the net collection of the Cinema.

(b) The demand of the fixed rental charges by the department, according to the petitioner, is a matter of contractual obligation on the part of the film exhibitors to carry out the statutory obligation, which was not enforced between September, 1994 and July, 1999. The reason was that for identical issues, the exhibitors of the State of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi filed writ petitions before the concerned High Courts and Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court directed that all the matters be heard by the Delhi High Court, pursuant to which, the Delhi High Court heard the matters and held that demanding charges from the exhibitors is without quid pro quo and illegal as it imposes a financial burden, for no return for the exhibitors for exhibiting the short films.

(c) The concerned State Governments filed civil appeals before the Honourable Supreme Court and the judgment of the Delhi High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 17. 1999. The contention of the petitioner is that on and from 17. 1999 i.e, from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court rental charges can be collected and for the earlier period i.e, from September, 1994 to July, 1999, the respondents are not justified in demanding rental charges as that period was covered by the interim orders and final orders of the Delhi High Court. As the matter was pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court, it is claimed that the respondents themselves did not enter into any agreement and collected any rental charges. After the Supreme Court order, respondents 1 and 2 issued notice to the members of the petitioner association and demanded rental charges for the relevant period, i.e, from September, 1994 to July, 1999.

(d) The said action of the respondents is challenged on the ground that the rental charges being an amount payable pursuant to the agreement, it is neither a tax nor a fee, which is payable as a matter of course. As there is no contract to pay the rental charges and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court being a declaratory judgment made on 17. 1999, it can be applied prospectively. Hence the petitioners filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from determining, assessing and demanding the rental charges from the members of the petitioner association in respect of the short films sought to be exhibited between the period of September, 1994 and July, 1999 during the pendency of the issue before the High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court by retrospectively applying the declaratory judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3767 to 3771 of 1999 by judgment dated 17. 1999.

3. The learned single Judge considered the claim made in the writ petition and dismissed the same by a detailed order dated 211. 2002, against which the present writ appeal is preferred.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit, contended that the period for which the rental charges are being demanded is unjust, as no short film was given to the Fil