BALWINDER SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(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.