LexDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWAR AND ANR. versus HARISH MALHOTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 13 S.C.R. 1383 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWARANDANR. A V. HARISH MALHOTRA (Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2014) DECEMBER 09, 2014 [M. Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] B Uttar Pradesh Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by Means of Videos) Rules, 1988 - r. 17 (2) - Applicability of - To the cable operator registered under Cable Television C Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cinematograph Act, 1952- For running private video channels - Held: Payment of fee ulr. 17(2) does not have statutory sanction - In the absence of the sanction, liability to pay the fee cannot be imposed on the cable operator- The act of the operator in D running private video channels would not fall within the expression 'Exhibition by means of Video' within the meaning of s. 2( aa) of Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955- Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955- s. 2( aa)- Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995- Cinematograph Act, 1952 , E - Uttar Pradesh (Entertainment and Betting) Tax Act, 1979. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The provisions of the U.P. (Cinemas) Regulation Act, 1955 do not apply to the Respondent (the F cable operator) and for the reason the expression "Exhibition by means of Video" within the meaning of s.2(aa) of Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, is not applicable to the respondent. Thus, Rule 17 is also not applicable to the respondent. [Para 14)(1389-B-C] G 2. So long as there is no statutory sanction for imposition of a tax, no liability of paying a fee can be . imposed relying on the alleged "consent" or acquiescence to the same imposition in part. The 1383 H 1384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A statutory sanction cannot be found under the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 or any rules made thereunder. [Para 15)(1389-C-E] 3. From a plain reading of the relevant provisions it is clear that the same are not applicable to the B respondent and hence the demand as well as the Recovery Certificate dated 6.8.2011 issued under Rule 17(2) of the Rules are bad in law. [Para 16][1389-D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C 10855 of2014. D E From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2010 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 92of2010. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv., for the Appellants. R. K. Raizada, Sr. Adv., Vivek Gupta, Amitesh Mishra (For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.), Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 'PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment and order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No.92 of 2010, F whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent set aside the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.671 of 2010 and quashed that part of the demand order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, G whereby a license fee of Rs.11,88,500/- was demanded from the respondent. 3. The brief matrix of facts is that the Respondent is a Cable Television Network Operator in Haridwar as defined under Section 2(aa) of the Cable Television Networks H (Regulation) Act, 1995. He obtained necessary Licence to run DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWARANDANR. v. 1385 HARISH MALHOTRA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] the Cable Network. As a Cable Operator, he down-links the A signals from Satellite and retransmits the same through his Cable Network System to different broadcasters. He is entitled to transmit and retransmit broadcasts and is bound by the liabilities and obligations pertaining to and including the Cinematography Act. The respondent started two private B channels with effect from April 1, 2009 and thereby he started transmitting live programmes of Haridwar and other programmes of interest, including Hindi songs and movies, with the assistance of a video recorder. On being informed that a separate license was required to run these channels, he c approached the District Magistrate, Haridwar for obtaining the necessary license. The District Magistrate rejected his application in view of the restrictions imposed under Rules 11 ( 1) and 11 (2) of the Uttarakhand Video Rules, 1988. 4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid rejection by D filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.