Radhika Video Centre and ors. Vs. the District Magistrate and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil - exhibition of cinematography - section 2 (1) of karnataka cinemas (regulation) act, 1964 - petition to permit petitioners to install laser disc, video compact disc be used for exhibition of cinematography to viewers - player or video digital disc player as apparatus used for exhibition of moving pictures or series of pictures as defined under section 2 (1) - in view of law laid down by apex court petition allowed. - contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & high court of karnataka (contempt of court proceedings) rules, 1981, clause (v) of rule 5; [dr.k. bhakthavatsala, j] whether the consent of the advocate general is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? held, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act.....orderchidananda ullal, j.1. since no rule has been issued, i issue rule in all these matters since the same have been taken up for final disposal.2. in filing the first set of writ petitions in w.p. nos. 24881 to 24883 of 2000 and the second set of writ petition in w.p. no. 33946 of 2000, the petitioners had prayed for direction to the district magistrates, tumkur, udupi, shimoga and chitradurga to permit the petitioners to install laser disc, laser player or video compact disc and a player or video digital disc and a player in their respective video theatres for the purpose of exhibition of cinematograph shows to the viewers, whereas in filing the third set of writ petitions in w.p. nos. 22431 and 22432 of 1997, the petitioners had prayed for issue of writ mandamus directing the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Chidananda Ullal, J.

1. Since no rule has been issued, I issue rule in all these matters since the same have been taken up for final disposal.

2. In filing the first set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 24881 to 24883 of 2000 and the second set of writ petition in W.P. No. 33946 of 2000, the petitioners had prayed for direction to the District Magistrates, Tumkur, Udupi, Shimoga and Chitradurga to permit the petitioners to install Laser Disc, Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their respective video theatres for the purpose of exhibition of cinematograph shows to the viewers, whereas in filing the third set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 22431 and 22432 of 1997, the petitioners had prayed for issue of writ mandamus directing the respondent 2-Licensing Authority to permit the petitioners to install Laser Disc and a Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their respective video theatres. Before proceeding further, I feel it appropriate to set out the prayers in all these writ petitions, they read as hereunder:

The prayer in the first set of writ petitions in W.P. No. 24881 to 24883 of 2000 as reads thus:

'(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to install Laser Disc and a Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their respective Video Theatre for the purpose of exhibition of cinematograph shows to the viewers;

(ii) issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petitions with costs, in the interest of justice and equity'.

The prayer in the second set of writ petition in W.P. No. 33946 of 2000 as reads thus:

'(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to not to interfere and on the contrary, to permit the petitioner to exhibit cinematograph shows with the help of Laser Disc and a Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in the Video Theatre of the petitioner for the benefit of the viewers;

(ii) issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petitions with costs, in the interest of justice and equity'.

The prayer in the third set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 22431 and 22432 of 1997 reads thus:

'(1) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement/order bearing No. ENTERTAINMENT.CR.33/97-98, dated 8-7-1997 issued by the 2nd respondent-Licensing Authority marked as Annexure-F;

(2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent-Licensing Authority to permit the petitioners to install Laser Disc and a Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their respective Video Theatres for the purpose of exhibition of cinematograph shows to the viewers;

(3) Issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petitions with costs, in the interest of justice and equity'.

3. From the above, it is clear that in substance in all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners had contended that they are entitled to install Laser Disc and a Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their Video Theatres for the purpose of exhibition of cinematograph shows to the viewers.

4. Sri E.G. Sridharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the third set of writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 22431 and 22432 of 1997 had argued in all these matters. At the outset, he argued that his parties as well as the petitioners in the connected writ petitions may be disposed commonly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Video Theatres and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., : (1993)IIILLJ42SC . In the third set of writ petitions, as I see, the order/endorsement issued by the respondent 2-Licensing Authority, whereby he had rejected the applications of the petitioners for grant of licence to exhibit by use of equipments viz., Laser Disc and Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player for exhibition of motion pictures. The impugned endorsement reads thus:

5. The respondent-District Magistrates in all these writ petitions might have issued the endorsement in question in view of lack of knowledge in them with regard to the scope of definition of 'Cinematograph' in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It appears to me that if the respective District Magistrates had correctly understood the said definition properly and in proper perspective, they would not have entered into an error on the subject. The term 'Cinematograph' had been defined under Section 2(1) of the Act as hereunder:

''Cinematograph' includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures'.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri E.G. Sridharan, argued that revolutionary changes had taken place in the field of exhibition of cinematograph. According to him, the point now for consideration of the Court in all these writ petitions is whether in the place of usage of Video Cassette Recorder and Television Sets, Laser Disc, Laser Player and Video Compact Disc be used for exhibition of motion pictures. Having formulated the question, Sri Shridharan answered the same in the affirmative. That he did by drawing the support from the aforesaid reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to him, the law is well-settled now by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decision. As such, the same is no more in controversy.

7. Having gone through the decision, I also hold the view of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shridharan with regard to the point for consideration of the Court in all these writ petitions. Without discussing further, I reiterate that the point now for my consideration in all these writ petitions is whether in the place of usage of Video Cassette Recorder and Television Sets, Laser Disc, Laser Player and Video Compact Disc be used for exhibition of motion pictures or not.

8. In the aforesaid reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held as hereunder:

'8. We are in agreement with this view. The definition of the expression 'cinematograph' contained in Section 2(c) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Section 2(a) of the Act is an inclusive definition which included any apparatus for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. The said definition cannot be confined in its application to an apparatus for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures which was known on the date of the enactment of the said provision. It must be given a meaning which takes into account the subsequent scientific developments in the field in accordance with principle of statutory construction laid down in Senior Electric Inspector and Ors. v. Laxminarayan Chopra and Anr., : [1962]3SCR146 . In that case it has been held:

'.... in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them (pp. 156-157) (of SCR): (at p. 163 of AIR)'. 9. The VCR/VCP were developed in 1970s and achieve the same purpose as the traditional media for exhibition of moving pictures. There is nothing in the Act which excludes the applicability of the Act to VCR/VCP.

10. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that VCR/VCP are within the ambit of the definition of 'cinematograph' contained in Section 2(a) of the Act and the appellants in order to, carry on the business of running video Player/or showing pre-recorded cassettes of films through the medium of VCR/VCP must obtain a licence in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules'.

9. In view of the above, the law is now well-settled by the Apex Court on the subject and does not require any explanation further. Therefore, in my considered view, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent 2 in the third set of writ petitions is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The matters are now remitted to the respective District Magistrates to dispose of the respective applications of the petitioners in all the above writ petitions in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above. Let that be done by the respective District Magistrates within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, if necessary after hearing the petitioners in all the writ petitions now before this Court.

10. It appears to me that the respective District Magistrates were told about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, there would not have been any confusion in their minds leading to filing the instant three sets of writ petitions.

11. In view of the above, I hold that all these writ petitions are liable to be allowed and the respective District Magistrates have to be directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter of renewal of respective licence to exhibit motion pictures by use of Laser Disc/Laser Player/Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player. Accordingly, all these writ petitions succeed and stand allowed.

The respective District Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners are directed to pass appropriate order in the matter of renewal of licenses of the petitioners for exhibition of cinematograph shows by taking Laser Disc/Laser Player/Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc/a Player as apparatus used for exhibition of moving pictures or series of pictures as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners in first and second sets of writ petitions adopt the argument of Sri E.G. Sridharan.

The Registry is also directed to forward the order herein passed to all the District Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners in the State for their guidance as the issue of usage of Video Cassette Recorder/Laser Disc/Laser Player and Video Compact Disc etc., may come up before them time and again.

By way of caution, it is also added that it is not the last word on the subject, they may as well keep themselves well-informed about the revolutionary changes that takes place in the field of science and technology touching the subject, information and communication, for man's quest for knowledge is continuous, unending and unfathomable.

All these writ petitions stand allowed with the above directions to the District Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners in the State to avoid and shorten litigations on the subject in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Video Theatres, referred to in para 4, supra.

The learned Government Pleader may communicate the order herein made to all the concerned District Magistrates in the writ petitions at the earliest.