SITAR VIDEO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the aforesaid petitions, vires of Uttar Pradesh Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by Means of Video) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Video Rules) has been questioned in some way or the other and all the petitions can be conveniently disposed of together. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petitions may be disposed of finally at this stage. Writ Petition No. 13556 of 1991 shall be the leading petition.

(2.) Before dealing with the issues which are subject matter of determination in the aforesaid writ petitions, it would be appropriate to mention in the brief the facts giving rise to the aforesaid petitions. Writ Petition No. 13556 of 1991

(3.) In this petition, petitioner's case is that for running Video Cinema, Shri Abhai Prakash who claims to be proprietor, constructed a permanent building in Sakaldiha Bazar, which is ouside the territory of Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi and has a population of more than ten thousand. An application was filed on 22-12-1987 praying for a licence to exihibit films by means of Video. This application was considered under Uttar Pradesh Cinematograph Rules, 1951. By an order dated 27-1-1988 licence was granted for a period of six months under the aforesaid Rules, i.e. for the period beginning 28/01/1988 to 27/07/1988. The licence so granted was further renewed for another period of six months ending on 27/01/1989. The aforesaid Video Rules were made and enforced with effect from 1st Sept. 1988. Petitioner again applied for renewal of the licence and the licence was renewed for further period of six months, i.e. for the period 9/10/1989 to 8/04/1990. The licence was further granted for two months, i.e. for the period 11/07/1990 to 9th Sept. 1990 on the application of the petitioner. However, thereafter the renewal application was rejected by the licensing authority by order dated 25-9-1990 on the ground that a licence for permanent cinema, i.e. Saraswati Chhavi Grih has been granted and since the premises of the petitioner is situate about one Kilometer, licence cannot be granted in view of the provisions contained in Rule 11(2) of the Video Rules. This order of the licensing authority was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 25350 of 1990 which was dismissed by order dated 1-2-1991 on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner before the State Government. Thereafter, the order was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully as appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the State Government by order dated 11-4-1991, aggrieved from which the present petition has been filed. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Petitioner has mainly challenged the provisions of and prohibition contained in Rule 11 of the Video Rules against granting licence for a Video Cinema where the cinema in a permanent building is already running. Writ Petition No. 29544 of 1991.