ORDER
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any order or direction to the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner from payment of entertainment duty in respect of Haryana Feature Film 'KES UPNE KA JIKER'. The petitioner has submitted an application on November 12, 1984 for this purpose and the preview of the film was held on December 14, 1984. In the writ petition, reliance has been placed on the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1955 (as applicable to the State of Haryana), which provides that the Government may for promotion of peace and International goodwill or encouragement of arts and crafts, sports or other public interest, by general or special order, exempt any entertainment or class of entertainments from liability to pay duty under that Act. Reliance has also been placed on Rule 22 of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Rules, 1956 (as applicable to the State of Haryana). The provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and Rule 22 are reproduced below for facility of reference:
'11. xx xxx xx
(3) The Government may, for promotion of peace and International Goodwill or encouragement of arts and crafts, sports or other public interest, by general or special order, exempt any entertainment or class or entertainments from liability to pay duty under this Act.'
22. Exemption by Government.- (a) xxxx xxx
(b) On receipt of such an application, the Entertainment Tax Officer of the District shall forward the same, without delay, with his recommendations to the Commissioner with a copy of his recommendations to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the area concerned. The Commissioner would obtain the necessary orders of Government as early as possible, and the orders so obtained, shall be intimated to the proprietor.'
2. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 the stand taken is that the case of the petitioner was under consideration and the decision was likely to be taken. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action with the petitioner to rush to this Court as the authorities were seized of the matter.
3. At the time of hearing. Mr. Siddharth Sarup, learned State counsel has produced the record and has pointed out that on November 28, 1985, a decision has been taken not to grant exemption from duty to the film 'Ke Supne Ka Jiker'. The record further shows that the film was viewed by Sh. J.K. Duggal, IAS, the then Commissioner and Secretary, Haryana Excise and Taxation Department. Shri Prem Prashant, IAS, Joint Secretary (Finance) and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, at Batra Theatre. Chandigarh on November 27. 1985. On the basis of their visual impression, it was concluded that there was nothing new or off-beat in the picture and the major part of the scenes in the film are of routine and repetitive nature. Certain scenes like beating of wife in the film and the college students enjoying alcoholic drinks were also commented upon adversely as such scenes would create bad effect on the semi-literate or illiterate viewers. Therefore, it was concluded that the film would not qualify for exemption from duty. In para 4 of the order dated November 20, 1985, the aforementioned reasons have been mentioned, which read as under:-
'Although the picture falls within the parameters of eligibility of entertainment duty, technically speaking, yet a final appraisal.... demerits of the movie does not go to make out a case for its being exempted from entertainment duty. There is nothing new or off-beat in the picture and for its major part the scenes are of a routine and repetitive nature. Even on technical values the picture is below par. Physical beating of his wife by the hero over the screen is not at all of a good taste. Similarly, the college students being shown enjoying alcoholic drinks also does not help imbibe any good point of character among the student community. In fact this tantamount to according an unbeating abrogation to such things in the eyes of semi-literate and illiterate viewers. The makers of the movie have not done any thing to depict the unprecedented pace of development which the State has seen after its inception.'
4. In view of the above. I do not find that there is any violation either of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 or Rule 22 ibid because the decision taken by the competent officers of the State is based on relevant consideration and cannot be termed as arbitrary. Moreover, even the order dated November 20, 1985 was conveyed to the petitioner on March 19, 1986, which remains unchallenged.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.