DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN main relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to restrain the respondents or their functionaries/subordinates from interfering in exhibiting/operating the films through VCRs and VCPs by him at his video parlour, namely, 'minakshi Video. '

(2.) THE petitioner is running a video parlour in village Mandrela, in the district Jhunjhunu and exhibits films on television by video. It is not in dispute that the petitioner charges money from the persons who are allowed to see the films, exhibited by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he cannot be compelled to obtain a licence under the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter, to be referred to as "the Act") and there is no provision giving any control to the functionaries of the State Government if films are shown on television by video, and that the petitioner is being harassed unnecessarily by the functionaries of the State Government. THE learned counsel had also drawn my attention towards a letter dated Feb. 10, 1986 (Ann. l), issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to the District Magistrate, Dholpur, in which it has been stated that no licence is required for exhibition of films through VCRs/vcps.

(3.) IN the Copy Right Act, 1957, the following Explanation has been inserted in clause (7) of sec. 2 (a) by the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 1984, which came in force on 8th Oct. , 1984: "explanation - For the purposes of this clause, "video films" shall be deemed to be work produced by a process analogous to cinematography. "