1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 15237/2005(C) wherein he has declined to grant the relief of a writ of certiorari to quash the order impugned dt.2/4/2005 and notice dt. 28/5/2005 by recording reasons with observation that the respondents 1 & 2 are clothed with power to issue the impugned directions and also refused to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed by the Company, urging various legal contentions. Further the appellant has prayed to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and to quash the impugned order and notice by allowing this writ appeal.
2. Certain relevant brief facts are stated in this Judgment for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged in this case and to answer the same.
The appellant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, hereinafter called 'the Company' in short, carrying on with a commercial undertaking business of exhibiting movies at various locations including New Delhi, U.P. Haryana, Maharashtra, M.P and Bangalore. Its trade mark brand and style is 'PVR Cinemas'. It is its case that, it has acquired considerable reputation for exhibiting cinemas in a professional manner. It operates 11 theatres in a multiplex in Bangalore at The Forum', 21-22, Adugodi Main Road, Near Madiwala Checkpost, Koramangala, Bangalore (in short 'Cinema Hall'). It is its case that it has obtained necessary approvals, permissions under the provisions of Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1964 and Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1971, hereinafter called as 'the Act' and 'the Rules'. It has also stated that it has been exhibiting films strictly in compliance with the mandate of the provisions of the Act and the Rules including the educational and documentary films in its Cinema Halls in Bangalore since November 2004. The company being visual media which is considered to be a powerful tool for the communication of new ideas and educational programs having regard to the fact that large section of the population in India is illiterate, it has very limited access to knowledge, information and ideas and to note that knowledge and information be disseminated to the vast sections of the population of the society in the country.
3. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 is a Films Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Department is a National Agency devoted to produce and distribute news magazines, quickies, scientific films and documentaries. It produces educational and scientific films in-house for various Ministries and Departments of Government of India and other State Governments. It has stated that many private agencies and entities for over years entered into the business of production of educational and scientific films as documentaries which is mandatorily required to be exhibited by all Cinema Halls before screening the regular movie. Therefore, no monopoly exits in favour of respondent No. 3 for either production or distribution of the said documentary films. It is its case that M/s. Media International Limited, (the 'Supplier') is an incorporated company under the Companies Act producing scientific, educational and documentary films. This Company has approached it and said company supplied the said documentary films for exhibition in its Cinema Halls.
4. The Company received a notice dated March 4, 2005 from the second respondent which is a Licensing Authority under the Act and the Rules stating that the Company is due a sum of Rs. 7,33,200/- payable to the third respondent under Rule 35-C of the Rules. Therefore, it was called upon to pay the said amount and produce the certificate within 3 days from the date of receipt of that letter failing which necessary action will be taken against the Company in accordance with law for which it has replied on 7/3/2005 to the second respondent contending that it is not liable to pay the amount demanded which was acknowledged by the second respondent by an endorsement dated 14/3/2005 in which reply reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v., Motion Pictures Association : [1999]3SCR875 in support of its legal contention that a Licensee is in a position to procure approved films from any source other than the Films Division - Respondent No. 3 herein, in the absence of statutory prohibition from doing so.
5. Further it is stated, that the second respondent has informed the Company that there was an order from the first respondent to make it mandatory for the company to obtain the certificate from respondent No. 3 to exhibit films which are approved by it vide order dated April 2, 2005. The Company aggrieved by the said order and notice, filed writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorari and mandamus quashing the same and to give appropriate direction to respondents 1 & 2 not to insist upon the Company to obtain any certificate from respondent No. 3 as the same would be contrary to the mandate of law under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
6. In the Writ Petition, an interim order was sought to stay the operation of the notice dated May 28, 2005 issued by the second respondent at Annexure-G. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated June 8, 2005 passed a conditional order of stay ordering stay of operation of the said notice subject to the condition that the Company shall deposit entire amount of Rs. 8,54,057.00 as demanded in the said notice. The same was complied with by the Company by obtaining a demand draft drawn on Standard Chartered Bank and submitted to this Court on 10th June 2005 and brought to the notice of this Court that the license issued would be expiring on August 31, 2005. An application for renewal of the same as provided under the provisions of the Act and the Rules was submitted to the second respondent and the earlier license issued did not contain any conditions for screening documentary films in the theatres of the Company by obtaining permission from third respondent before screening the regular films. Therefore, the Company was not required to fulfill any additional conditions. In this regard, additional affidavit is filed by it on August 31st, 2005, two interlocutory applications were also filed by respondent No. 3 seeking direction from the learned Single Judge to the company from exhibiting any movie in any of its theatres and further direct it to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,17,575.00 towards arrears of revenue and to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,992.00 for 11 theatres per week till the disposal of the writ petition. No orders are passed by the learned Single Judge on the said applications. Despite the same, the second respondent has issued another notice dated November 28, 2005 directing the company to pay the aforesaid amount.
7. The learned Single Judge has directed respondents 1 & 2 to file affidavits to answer the questions as to whether the company had entered into agreement with the third respondent, if not, whether it is open for the second respondent to grant the license, whether the company has been exhibiting only those films approved as per the Rules, if, the company has been exhibiting films which are not approved, then what steps the Government has been taking against it. Accordingly the respondents 1 & 2 have filed affidavits. They have answered the first part of the query in the negative and second part of the query No. (a) in the affirmative and also the first part of query (b) in the affirmative, second part of the same is in the negative.
8. Statement of counter was filed by the respondents justifying their respective stands taken by t hem as indicated in the order & notice impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge with reference to the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act and also decision of the Apex Court has passed the impugned order by dismissing the writ petition.
9. The correctness of the said order is questioned in this appeal by the Company contending that the same is vitiated in law for the reason that the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952 Parts I, II and IV are extended to the whole of India and Part-III extends to Union Territories. Part-IV of said Act pertains to repeal of the Act. The Karnataka State Legislature in exercise of its legislative power, has enacted the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, the Rules and regulations are framed by the State Government in exercise of its power under the statute for grant of licences and permitting the film exhibitors to exhibit the films in the theatres after obtaining the licenses from the licensing Authority by following the mandatory provisions under the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations. Therefore, Sri R.N. Narasimhamurthy, learned Sr. Counsel submits that Section 12 of the Act enables the State Government to issue directions from time to time to any licensee or licensees generally requiring them to exhibit such film or class of films having scientific or educational value such films dealing with news and current events, documentary films indigenous in the theatres in the public interest prior to screening the regular movies, as may have been approved by the State Government in that behalf.
10. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act enables the State Government to give any directions under Sub-section (1) to the licensees, such directions shall be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions to the licenses subject to that the licence has been granted by the licensing Authority in favour of the licensees. No directions are issued 'from time to time' by the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 directing the licensee that they shall exhibit any such film or films in its theatre as approved by the State Government.
11. He has also invited our attention to the Rules 8, 18, 19 of the Rules in support of his legal contention that the State Government may 'from time to time' has to issue directions to any licensee or licensees generally to exhibit the documentary films as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act and the same must be approved by the State Government in that behalf on the recommendation made by the Film Advisory Board which is required to be constituted as provided under Rule-8 of the Rules. Rule-18 provides for filing an application to the Chairman of the Film Advisory Board by the State Government to approve exhibiting the documentary films produced by respondent No. 3 to be screened by the Cinematographers in their theatres as provided under Section 12(2) of the Act read with relevant Rules. Rule-19 contemplates action to be taken by the Board to examine such documentary films as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act by it as to whether it could advise the State government to approve the same as required under the above provisions of the Act for screening the same before the regular movies to be screened in the theatres of licenses. Section 12 of Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 reads as follows:
12. Power of State Government to issue directions- (1) State Government may, from time to time, issue directions to any licensee or to licensees generally, requiring the license or licensees to exhibit -
(a) such film or class of films having a scientific or educational value;
(b) such films dealing with news and current events;
(c) such documentary films, indigenous films, or such other films having special value to the public, as may have been approved by the State Government in that behalf from time to time.
(2) Where any directions have been issued under Sub-section (1) such directions shall be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions subject to which the license has been granted:Provided that no direction issued under this section shall require the licensee to exhibit any such firm or films exceeding two thousand feet at, or for more than one-fifth of the entire time taken for, any one show.
12. Sri R.N. Narasimha Murthy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for appellant-Company vehemently contends that the films enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12(1) of the Act are not approved by the State Government in consultation with the Film Advisory Board which is yet to be constituted by the State Government under Rule-8 of the Rules. Therefore, first respondent could not have passed general order calling upon the licensee or licensees to exhibit the films enumerated therein before exhibiting the regular films in the theatre or theatres which are being run by the licensees and no condition is incorporated in the licence issued by the second respondent in favour of the company which has been renewed from time to time till the impugned notice issued by the second respondent and the order passed by the first respondent. Insisting the Company by the second respondent to obtain certificate of declaration from third respondent as provided under Rule 35-C of the Rules stating that it has completed all arrangements for exhibiting films approved by the Board is against the provision of Section 12(1) of the Act as the said rule is also inconsistent with the draft rules. It is contended that said rule could not have been approved by the State Government which is the rule making authority as the same is in conflict with substantive statutory provision of Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act read with Rules 8, 16, 18 and 20 referred to supra. The said rule is also not in conformity with Cinematograph Act of 1952 as Part-III of this Act are not applicable to the theatres which are being run in the State in view of the State enactment. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Sr. Counsel that the impugned notice and the order is without authority of law and jurisdiction as the State Government-first respondent has failed to discharge its statutory duty in not constituting the Film Advisory Board as provided under Rule 8 for the purpose of approving the scientific and education films dealing with current events produced by respondent No. 3 to be exhibited by the licensees in theatres before screening the regular films after obtaining certificate in terms of Rule 35-C of the Rules which is not permissible in law and not considering the reply of the Company to the notice and passing the order by the first respondent is also vitiated in law for want of jurisdiction and authority of law, therefore ex-facie both notice and the order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the same was required to be examined by the learned Single Judge from the above perspective. Learned Single Judge has not done so. He has failed to issue the direction as sought for by the appellant-Company eventhough it had made out a case that respondents 1 and 2 have acted at the dictates of third respondent who has no role to play in the matter. Except asking the first respondent by respondent No. 3 to see that the films as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act are required to be approved for screening the same in the theatres before exhibiting regular movies by the licensees in the larger interest of public, instead of that, it has directed the first respondent to see that the rent is paid by the Company to it on the alleged ground that it did not exhibit the films produced by third respondent though those films have not been approved by it as required under Section 12(1) Clause (c) read with Rules 8 and 20 of the Rules and further compelled the Company to get declaration certificate from respondent No. 3 as provided under Rule 35(c) of the Rules which direction of the respondents 1 and 2 is illegal. Further, not renewing the licence in favour of Company by second respondent after expiry of licence period and granting temporary licence pursuant to the directions of this Court in the matter though it is entitled for the same legally as the licensing Authority has failed to exercise its power under the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations. For the foregoing reasons, it is stated that the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to exercise his jurisdiction is vitiated in law and not examining the case of the Company in the aforesaid perspective has palpably vitiated the order of learned Single Judge. Therefore, it is contended by him that it is a fit matter for this Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction and power for the reason that there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal for grant of the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition.
13. With reference to the above said legal contentions, Sri P.G.C. Chengappa, learned AGA was directed to ascertain from the State Government as to whether the films as referred to under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act produced by third respondent for exhibiting the same in the theatres prior to screening of regular films by the licensees under the above provisions of the Act has been approved by the State Government 'from time to time' or not. In this regard, the learned AGA has filed affidavit of Prl. Secretary to Home Dept., State of Karnataka. It is worthwhile to extract Para-3 of the said affidavit which reads thus:
I state that on verification from the available records, I notice that the State Government has issued orders in specific cases under Section 12 of the said Act, for exhibiting the films approved by the films approved by the Government of India. Following are the orders available issued by the State Government.
1. Order No. HD 39 CAN 73 dt: 24.3.1973
2. Order No. HD 44 CAN 73 dated 11.4.1973
3. GO No. HD 1 CAN 75 dated 17.1.1975
4. Letter No. HD 3 CNM 77 dated 21.2.1977
5. GO No. HD 155 Can 75 dated 8.9.1975
6. GO No. HD 176 Can 75 dated 18.10.1975.
14. After filing the said affidavit this Court had directed the learned AGA to make statement in this case after taking instructions from the Prl. Secretary as to whether the Film Advisory Board is constituted by the State Government as provided under Rule-8 of the Rules for the purpose of approval of the films 'from time to time' as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Clause (c) of the Act produced by third respondent to exhibit the same by the licensees in their respective theatres before screening the regular films. The submission made by the learned AGA on instructions is that no such Film Advisory Board is constituted yet by the State Government. Further, he has categorically submitted that except the orders produced along with the affidavit of the Prl. Secretary of above Department pursuant to the direction of this Court no further orders in this regard as provided under Section 12(1) of Clause (c) of the Act read with Rule 20 of the Rules are passed by the State Government approving the documentary films 'from time to time' produced by Films Division for screening the same by the licensees prior to screening the regular films.
15. Sri N. Devadas, learned Senior Counsel for Central Government appearing for Films Division-respondent No. 3 herein, placing strong reliance upon the said Government orders contended that in view of said documents produced by the first respondent it was the mandatory duty on the part of second respondent licensing authority to incorporate the condition in the licence granted in favour of the Company to exhibit documentary films as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act by the licensee in his theatre before screening the regular films. In the instant case, the Company has stated that it has obtained the documentary films produced by the private agency which is totally impermissible in law and not exhibiting the films produced by third respondent is not only contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Government Orders referred to supra and terms and conditions of the license issued to the Company by the second respondent. Therefore, he has submitted that the Company is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed in the Writ Petition and also not to get the licence renewed by it as its licence period has expired by efflux of time and it has not complied with legal requirement as provided under Rule 35(c) of the Rules. He has also placed reliance upon the various documents produced by respondent No. 3 along with additional statement filed by it on 24.8.2006 and the Rules framed by the Central Government under the Cinematography Act, 1952 and sought to justify the notice and the order impugned in the writ petition issued and passed by second and first respondents respectively.
16. The aforesaid legal contentions are strongly rebutted by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Company interalia contending that the Government orders produced along with the affidavit of the Prl. Secretary of the first respondent contending that the same are not in conformity with Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act r/w. Rule 8, 16 and 18 to 20 of the Rules for the reason that the latest Government order produced by first respondent is dated 18.10.1975. Thereafter no Government order is passed by the State Government approving the films produced by the Films Division for purpose of imposing deemed condition in the license by general order as stated under proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The orders produced by first respondent do not amount to approval of the documentary films produced by respondent No. 3 'from time to time' as provided Section 12(1)(c) of the Act as it expressly states that that the State Government from time to time has to issue directions to the licensees generally requiring them to exhibit films referred under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12(1) of the Act produced by Films Division in that behalf for screening of the same by the licensees in the theatres in the interest of public before exhibiting the regular films.
17. Further he has contended that the phrase 'from time to time' used in the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 12(c) of the Act has to be understood and interpreted by this Court as there is a definite purpose and object in incorporating those phrases in the above provision of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the meaning of phrase 'from time to time' from Law Lexicon by Sri P. Ramanath Aiyer which reads thus:
From time to time means 'as occasion may arise' (Per Williams J., Bryan v. Arthur, 11A & E 117) Stroude)
The words from time to time' mean that an adjournment may be made as and when the occasion requires and they will not mean adjournment from one fixed day to another fixed day.
The words 'from time to time' are words which are constantly introduced where it is intended to protect a person who is empowered to act from the risk of having completely discharged his duty when he has once acted, and therefore not being able to act again in the same direction'. The meaning of the words 'from time to time' is that after once acting the donee of the power may act again; and either independently of, or by adding to, or taking from, or reversing altogether, his previous act.
18. With reference to the above said rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration and determination in this appeal.:
(1) Whether impugned notice issued by the second respondent and the order passed by the first respondent are legal and valid?
(2) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is legal and valid?
(2) What Order?
19. The aforesaid points are required to be answered in favour of the appellant-company for the following reasons:
20. The State Legislature in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 33 of List No. II (State List) has enacted the statutory enactment called 'Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964'. The State Government in exercise of its rule making power under Section 19 of the Act has framed the rules. Second respondent is the licensing Authority in terms of definition under Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act, which states that the 'Licensing Authority' as the authority empowered under Section 3 of the Act to grant licences under the Act. Section 3 of the said Act authorizes the District Magistrate of the concerned District to grant the licence in favour of licensees for exhibiting the films in the theatres. Every Exhibitor of the films in the theatre is required to obtain licence under Section 5 of the Act Section 6 of the Act casts statutory duty upon the licensing authority to consider the matters before granting licence in favour of licensee. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act read with Rules 8 & 18 to 20 of the Rules confer power upon the State Government to issue directions 'from time to time' to any licensee or licensees generally requiring them to exhibit such films including the documentary films produced by Respondent No. 3 as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of the above provisions of the Act after approval of the same by the State Government as provided under Sub-sections (1) of Section 12(c) of the Act and Sub-section (1) of the above provision enables the State Government to issue directions subject to such conditions and restrictions to exhibit the approved films before exhibiting regular films in the theatres. The time stipulation for such exhibition of the approved films including documentary films produced by Respondent No. 3 in the theatres by the licensees is clearly stipulated under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Such condition in the license is held to be valid by the Apex Court in the case of R.M. Seshadri v. District Magistrate, Tanjore reported in : [1955]1SCR686 .
21. Keeping the above statutory provisions of the Act in view, we are required to examine the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties to answer the points-1 formulated by us as to whether the second respondent was justified legally in calling upon the company in the impugned notice to pay the amount stipulated therein to Respondent No. 3 and also calling upon the company to obtain the certificate of declaration under Rule 35-C of the Rules from him. For this purpose, the first respondent must first satisfy that the films produced by third respondent are approved by it 'from time to time' as required under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act after recommendation made by the film advisory Board constituted under Rule 8 by following the procedure contemplated under Rules 18 to 20 of the Rules for the purpose of exhibiting the same in the theatres of the licensees before screening the regular movies in the interest of general public, for which directions shall have to be issued generally as provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act as the same shall be deemed to be additional conditions to the license granted by the second respondent in favour of the licensees including the company.
22. In view of the categorical and fair submission made by Sri P.G.C. Chengappa, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-Respondents that Film Advisory Board is not constituted in terms of Rule-8 of the Rules, the question of approval of films produced by Respondent No. 3 as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) 'from time to time' of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act for the purpose of screening films including documentary in the theatres by the licensees prior to exhibiting the regular movies does not arise at all. The condition or additional conditions deemed to be incorporated in the license of the Company as provided under Section 12(1) of the Act read with relevant rules as contended by the learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No. 3 cannot be accepted by us as the same is not tenable in law in view of the undisputed fact that the State Govt. has not approved the films including documentary produced by of Respondent-3 from time to time and State Government has not issued directions generally to the licensees for the purpose of screening the films referred to supra in the theatres within the time stipulated did not arise for the Company. Further it is necessary for us to refer and consider the legal requirement of the approval of films produced by third respondent 'from time to time' by the State Government keeping in view the object of phrase 'from time to time' used in the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 12(c) of the Act, as it has got a definite purpose and object in using the said phrases. Therefore the meaning of phrases from time to time' as explained in the Law Lexicon by Sri P. Ramanatha Aiyar upon which strong reliance is rightly placed by the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Company which states as occasion may arise (per Williams J., Bryan v. Arthur, 11A & E 117 with all fours supports the legal contention urged on behalf of the Company. The meaning of the said phrases borrowed from the above book has got application to the fact situation of the present case. The phrase or phrases used in the statutory provisions of the Act, shall definitely have a definite purpose and object in using such phrase in the statute. The Films including documentary which are produced by third respondent are required to be approved by the State Government 'from time to time' taking into consideration the recommendation of the Film Advisory Board which has to recommend to the State Government for its approval for exhibiting the same in the theatres by the licensees for the benefit of public at large for which purpose the directions shall have to be issued by general order. Further, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12 of the Act must be read along with Rule-8 and 16, 18 to 20 of the Rules. In these Rules there is a reference to Section 12 of the Act. So, approval of the films produced by Respondent No. 3 as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section. 12 of the Act by the State Government is on the basis of recommendation of the Films Advisory Board constituted under Rule-8 of the Rules. At this stage, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala reported in : [1999]1SCR1121 wherein the Apex Court with reference to the provisions of the Advocates Act has laid down the law after considering the decisions of Chancellors court, Privy Council and its earlier decisions which is relevant for the present case. Paragraphs 31 & 32 of the said Judgment are extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case.
31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of going a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor 63 Ind App 372 : who stated as under:
Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh : 1954CriLJ910 and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan : [1962]1SCR662 . These cases were considered by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh : [1964]4SCR485 and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad's case (supra) was again upheld. The rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.
23. The aforesaid principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case referred to supra with all fours applicable to the fact situation having regard to the fair submission made by the learned AGA that Film Advisory Board is not constituted by the State Govt. as required under Rule-8 of the Rules and the Films produced by third respondent could not have approved by the State Government by following Rules 16 & 18 to 20 read with Section 12(1)(c) of the Act for screening the same in the theatres of the licensees before exhibiting regular films as deemed additional condition to be incorporated in the license as we have already observed that the phrase 'from time to time' used in Section 12(1)(c) of the Act has got relevance and importance having regard to the object of exhibiting the films including documentary as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of the above provision of the Act by the licensees in the theatres prior to screening the regular films in the larger interest of public to eradicate illiteracy among the masses, which is one of the laudable objects of the Films Division as it is an inexpensive communicative media for the masses of the country, which makes them understand on the very relevant aspects of scientific and educational news items which films are approved 'from time to time' & such aspects which are concerned to the public at large who are viewers of the regular films. In this regard the State government being independent sovereign Government under the Constitutional Federal set up it will have option as to which film including the documentary are relevant to be recommended by its expert body of Advisory Board consisting of experienced and expert persons in the respective field to advice the State Government for its approval for screening the same in the theatres by the licensees in the interest of State Government. The State Government has not constituted the Film Advisory Board in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules is an undisputed fact and not approving the films referred to supra which are produced by third respondent after 1975 'from time to time' on the recommendation of the Film Advisory Board. In the absence of approval of films by the State Government and directions issued to the licensees generally for screening the above films before screening the regular films the respondents No. 1 and 2 should not have passed the order and issued notice respectively to the company. Therefore, we have to hold that no conditions could have been incorporated in the licence issued to the appellant by the second respondent for exhibiting the documentary films. There is no general order or directions passed by the State Government also in this regard. In this view of the matter, the demand made by the second respondent with the company to produce declaration certificate under Rule 35-C of the Rules by obtaining the same from Respondent No. 3 is wholly unsustainable in law. Rule 35(c) of the said Rules states as follows:
Application for licence - After obtaining the certificates referred to in Rule 34 the applicant may submit his application for licence in writing to the Licensing Authority. The application shall be accompanied by -
(a) xxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxx
(c) a declaration by the applicant that he has completed all arrangements for obtaining films approved by the Central Government with the previous approval of the Film Division for exhibition of each performance together, with a statement from the suppliers confirming that such arrangements have been made;
24. The said Rule is contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act read with Rules 8, 16, 18 to 20 of the Rules. Further, approval of films as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12 of the Act by the State Government which are produced by third respondent is only on the basis of recommendation of the Film Advisory Board which is yet to be constituted by the State Government as provided under Rule 8 of the Rules. If Rule 35-C is contrary to Rule 8 and substantive provisions of Section 12 of the Act, placing reliance on Rule 35-C by the learned Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to get certificate by the Company from Respondent-3 as called upon by second respondent is wholly unnecessary, such direction is arbitrary and unreasonable in law. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 1 and demand notice issued by the second respondent to the Company which are impugned in the writ petitions are illegal and the same are liable to be quashed. Non-consideration of reply of the Company to the notice served upon it by the second respondent and thereafter passing an order by the first respondent is without jurisdiction and authority of law. Hence, both the impugned order and notice are wholly unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed for the reason that the same are vitiated on account of error apparent on the face of the record for want of jurisdiction & authority of law of first and second respondents respectively. Though the learned Single Judge had no occasion to examine the case in the above perspective as the similar legal contentions were not urged before him by the appellant's counsel, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act as stated above and the Rules referred to supra, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Order of learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice issued by the second respondent and the order passed by first respondent are quashed. Rule issued in the writ petition which was discharged by passing the impugned order is set aside and made absolute.
26. Before parting with the Judgment, in view of various facts stated by the learned AGA on behalf of first respondent in the interest of public at large, the films which have got relevance on scientific and educational news items and other documentary films, indigenous films having positive influence on the public produced by third respondent are required to be approved by the State Government 'from time to time' as it has got a statutory duty under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act by following the procedure contemplated under Rules 8, 16 and 18 to 20 of the Rules. We hope and trust in the larger interest of public, the State Government will take necessary action in this regard to constitute the Films Advisory Board in terms of Rule 8 as expeditiously as possible to achieve the laudable object of the statutory requirement of screening the films including documentary films by the licensees in their theatres before exhibiting the regular films in theatres. Further, having regard to the subsequent event that has taken place in the instant case i.e. the licence period in the license granted to the Company has come to an end by efflux of time, second respondent is directed to consider the application of the Company for renewal of the application in terms of provisions of the Act and Rules and pass appropriate order. Till the application of the (Company is disposed of, the appellant-Company is allowed to continue to screen the films hoping that the District Magistrate the second respondent herein disposes the application filed by the appellant-Company.
27. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Company has filed memo stating that conditional interim order granted by the learned Single Judge is complied with by the Company by depositing Rs. 8,54,057/- before this Court. On instructions, he submits that the said amount may be appropriated towards the fund of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for which neither the learned Additional Government Advocate nor third respondent have got objection. They stated that the amount may be spent for spreading legal literacy to the poor people to bring legal awareness among the masses in the Karnataka State to get their rights enforced and get justice from all the concerned in this regard. The same is taken on record. However, the offer made by the appellant is subject to acceptance by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for which, the matter may be placed before the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for its approval. If the above offer of the Company is acceptable to it, the Office shall transmit the amount in deposit to the account of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
18.11.2006.
ORDERS ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'
1. The learned AGA Mr. P.G.C. Chengappa, has filed memo on 17.11.2006 requesting the Court to post the matter before the Court to clarify regarding issue of licences in favour of the licensees till the constitution of Film Advisory Board by the State Government and approve the documentary films which are of scientific, educational & current news events produced by Respondent No. 3. Hence the case is listed today for 'being spoken to'. After hearing the learned AGA and other learned Counsel for the parties, we pass the following order by clarifying certain aspects as requested by the AGA in his memo.
2. We have already held that the documentary Films referred to supra produced by third respondent are not approved by the State Government 'from time to time' under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act read with relevant Rules and the impugned order and notice in the writ petition are quashed. We also made an observation to constitute the Advisory Board by the State Government under Rule 8 of the Rules. Since this process may take some time, in the meanwhile, it would be just and proper for this Court to give direction to the Licensing Authorities in the Karnataka State to incorporate the terms and conditions in the licenses that would be issued in favour of the licensees stating that the films including documentary which are enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12 of the Act that are produced by third respondent shall be screened in the theatres of licensees on such terms and conditions that may be imposed upon them which are not objectionable to the State Government. Ordered accordingly.