Back
2014 Supreme(UK) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Gulshan Kumar Ghai - Petitioner
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 371 of 2014
Decided On : 28.02.2014
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate. present for the petitioner.
Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel, present for the State of Uttarakhand.
The State Government has the power to regulate entertainment under Entry 33 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Regulation - Cable Television Network - The court upheld the validity of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Uttarakhand Cable Television Network (Exhibition) Rules, 1997, stating that the State Government has the power to regulate entertainment under Entry 33 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the vires of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of Uttarakhand Cable Television Network (Exhibition) Rules, 1997, arguing that the State Government only has powers to impose tax on entertainment and not to regulate it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's argument misconceived, stating that the State Government has the power to legislate on entertainment under Entry 33 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Validity of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1997, and the State Government's power to regulate entertainment.
Ratio Decidendi: The executive powers of the State Government extend to all matters in respect of which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws, as per Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1997 was dismissed, and the District Magistrate was directed to take a decision on the petitioner's application within three weeks.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner inter alia has challenged the vires of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of Uttarakhand Cable Television Network (Exhibition) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1997”). The petitioner wants to run a Cable Television Network for which he has moved an application under Section 3 of the Rules of 1997 before the District Magistrate. The relevant Rule Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of Rules of 1997, which are under challenged reads as under:-
“3.Permission to provide Cable Service
(1) No person shall provide cable service without prior permission of the District Magistrate.
(2) Any person who desires to provide cable service under the Act may apply to the District Magistrate for permission to provide such service.
(3) Application under sub-rule (2) shall be given in Form-1.
(4) On receipt of the application, the District Magistrate shall satisfy himself that the applicant has furnished all the requisite information and on being so satisfied, grant to the applicant such permission in Form 2 for a period of three financial year at a time.
Provided that the District Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant refuse to grant the permission.
(5) The District Magistrate shall, as far as may be, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the application, pass an order Sub Rule (4).
4. Renewal of the permission (1) The District Magistrate may, on application being given to him, renew the permission granted under rule 3 before the expiry of its term for a period of three Financial Year at a time. Such renewal shall be given in Form-2. (2) Application for renewal under sub-rule (1) shall be given inform 1 at least sixty days before the expiry of the term of the permission. (3) The District Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to renew the permission. (4) The order under sub-rule (3) shall be passed before the expiry of the term of the permission.
(5) Renewal of the permission deemed to have been granted Where the District Magistrate fails to pass any order under rule 4 before the expiry of the term of the permission granted under rule 3. the renewal of such permission for a period of three Financial Year shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant and the District Magistrate shall, in that event. issue such renewal in Form-2.”
2. According to the petitioner, the State Government only has powers to impose tax, inter alia on entertainment under Entry no. 62 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:-
“62. Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling.”
3. He further submits that since these powers are only to impose entertainment tax, it does not give them power to regulate entertainment. The power to regulate is contained under the Union List at Entry No. 31 of List I of Schedule 7, which reads as under:-
“Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication.”
4. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 was enacted by Parliament in the Forty-sixth year Parliamentary Legislation and subsequently the State Provision Rules of 1997 were framed in the year 1997 where before having a Cable Television Network, a person has to get licence from the District Magistrate under Rule 3 of Rules 1997, which has already been referred above.
5. This argument of the petitioner, however, is totally misconceived, inasmuch as, under Entry No. 33 of List II of Schedule 7 the State Government has got powers to legislate on entertainment, subject to the provision of Entry 60 of List I, which reads as under:-
“33. Theatres and dramatic performances; cinemas subject to the provision of entry 60 of List I; sports, entertainments and amusements.”
6. Entry 60 of List I, reads as under:-
“60. Sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition.”
7. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner th
