ANAND JAISWAL Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE SHAHDOL M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order will dispose of Misc. Petition No. 3940/1987 Ashok Chhabaria v. The Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur and another, Misc. Petition No. 501/1988 Mahesh Kumar Sahu v. Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur and other, and Misc. Petition No. 1161 /1988 M/s. Video Classic and another v. The State of M.P. and another. In M.P. No. 3673/1987, the cancellation of the video licence is on the ground that a large screen has been used. In M.P. No. 3940/1987, while the District Magistrate had cancelled the video licence on the same ground, in appeal the Commissioner has restored the appeal but restricted the size of the screen to size of normal T.V. screen. M.P. No. 501/1988 is preferred by a cinema operator against the order of the Commissioner restoring the licence. In M.P. No. 1161/88 the District Magistrate while issuing the licence has restricted the size of the screen to 50 to 60 cms.

(2.) The petitioner in M.P. No. 3673/87 is an exhibitor of films through Video Cassette Recorder (V.C.R.) in his Video Parlour known as Arti Videotorium at Burhar. It is a tahsil town, having a population of about 20,000. There are two cinema houses nearby. The petitioner has constructed the Videotorium having sitting capacity of 160 persons and it has been furnished with chairs and also made the room acoustic. The petitioner has installed VPH 1020 QM Model Universal Video Projector and a V.C.R., having imported the Video Projector at a cost of rupees one lac from Hongkong after paying customs duty of Rs. 59,113/- on 16-2-1984. All the components taken together include optical part of projection system, picture tubes and projection lens. The Projector can exhibit picture of the size of 100" measured diagonally. The petitioner's equipment consists of (i) Video Projector, (ii) Television Screen of 100'', (iii) Video Cassette Recorder which reproduces the films recorded in a cassette on the screen through Video Projector, and (iv) Tuner which is used when transmitting T.V. Programmes. The Projector is hung at a distance from the screen behind the spectators from the ceiling. The Projector includes various control systems. Then it is hung from the ceiling it can be operated through remote control. The screen has to be kept at a distance specified from the Projector and when connected to the V.C.R., it transmits picture on the screen which can be operated with the help of the controls in the Projector itself and also through remote control from a distance. According to the petitioners, the Video Projector is part and parcel of T.V., Video Cassette Recorder and the screen. The entire components form one unit. The Projector is a necessary component of Television which fires three colours from three guns in line electron beams producing a narrow flood of red, green and blue colour electrons which, while passing through the lens combine and turn white before converging on the screen. This Video Projector is an improvement to the conventional T.V. and Video Cassette Recorder which are now common in many household. The petitioner claims to have invested about four lacs of rupees in Videoterim.

(3.) The petitioner in M.P. No. 3673/1987 applied for all licence under R.10 of M.P. Cinemas (Exhibition of Films by Video Cassette Recorder) Licensing Rules, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as V.C.R. Rules of 1983) and a licence was granted to him on 26-09-1984 valid for one year. Thereafter the petitioner has been exhibiting films through this Video Projector on 100" screen. However, the petitioner was given a show cause notice and then his licence was suspended on 23-08-1985 on the ground that exhibition of films on such large screen through V.C.R. is not permissible under the Rules. The petitioner challenged the order in writ petition M.P. No. 2657/1985 which was allowed on 24-10-1986 and the order of suspension was quashed (Anand Jaiswal v. State, AIR 1987 Madh Pra 96). Thereafter the licence of the petitioner was not being renewed and, therefore, he filed MCC No. 743/86 for taking action for contempt against the respondents for not renewing the licence in spite of the order passed in the writ petition which is still pending. This perhaps annoyed the authorities and the petitioner's licence was again suspended on 28-05-1987. The petitioner challenged the order in M.P. No. 1386/87 and obtained stay. However, this writ petition was disposed of on 07-05-1988 since the period of licence had expired. The petitioner's licence was not being renewed for a year at a time as required under the Rules but for 2 months and 3 months. The last renewal being up to 10-11-1987. Since no order of renewal was passed thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P. No. 3591/87 which is pending in this Court, the petition having been admitted on 20-11-1987 and the petitioner permitted to exhibit films on payment of entertainment duty in the meanwhile, the District Magistrate vide his order dated 17/19-11-1987 cancelled the licence of the petitioner holding that the rules do not contemplate display of video films by Video Projector on a large screen. The petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation on the ground that this Court having allowed the earlier writ petition Anand Jaiswal v. State (supra) holding that the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his licence, the District Magistrate had no authority to cancel the same when the System is the same which is being used since 1984. The petitioner had given the details of his Television set i.e. the V.C.R. Projector in the earlier petition and the licensing authority was fully aware of the nature of the system and the screen that was being used and so the District Magistrate erred in holding that the present system of the petitioner was not subject-matter of dispute before the High Court. Under V.C.R. Rules of 1983, there is no restriction about size of the screen that can be used nor there is any restriction imposed in his licence about the size. The District Magistrate after finding that the petitioner is not using a separate screen but is using a separate system altogether, should not have cancelled the licence as in view of the earlier decision of this Court that the screen forms integral part of T.V. i.e. V.C.R. Projector and so the licence has to be renewed. The District Magistrate erred in holding that because of the large size of the screen, the petitioner is required to take a licence under M.P. Cinemas (Regulation ) Rules, 1972.