M/S. REGAL VIDEO versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M/S. REGAL VIDEO 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
JULY 14, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1952-Rules 98- 101>-Exhibition 
of pictures through VCR!VCP or Video Projector on a separate wide 
screen-U11en falls under. 
Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952--Section 2(a)--'Cinemato-
graph'-Whether includes VCR/VCP and TV Projector. 
Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1952--Rules 98- 10f>-£thibition 
of pre-recorded video cassettes through VCR!VCP or Video projector on a 
D separate wide scree11-Licenc1'-Necessity of 
E 
F 
The appellant was running a video parlour in Haryana. He was 
exhibiting pre-recorded cassettes of cinematograph films through video 
cassette recorder/video cassette player (VCR/VCP) and video projector on 
a separate wide screen. 
On 29.9.1989, the Governor of the State of Haryana promulga.ted a 
notification to amend the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1952. The 
amendment inserted Part IX containing Rules 98 lo 100 making special 
provisions relating to video..:inemas in the Rules. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
amendment. It was contended that VCR/VCP and a T.V. Projector did not 
fall within the ambit of the expression 'cinematograph' as defined under 
section 2(a) of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952; and that the 
appellant was not required to take a licence under the Act for running the 
G video parlour. 
The High Court, relying on the decision in Raja Video Parlour v. The 
State of Punjab, Civil Writ petition No.10150 of 1990, dismissed the writ 
petition. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
164 
.. 
" 
i 
REGAL VIDEO v. STATEOFHARYANA 
165 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was in error in disposing of the writ A 
petition of the appellant on the basis of its decision in Raja Video Parlour 
v. State of Punjab, C.W.P. No.10150of1990, inasmuch as the said decision 
is based on the provisions contained in the Punjab Exhibition of Films on 
Television Screen through Video Casette Players (Regulation) Rules, 1989 
framed by the Government of Punjab while the present case comes from the 
State of Haryana where those rules are not applicable and the relevant 
rules are rules 98 to 100 introduced in the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) 
Rules, 1952 by notification dated September 29, 1989. [167·D·E) 
B 
1.2. The provisions contained in the Punjab Roles considered by the 
High Court in the case of Raja Video Parlour v. State of Punjab & Ors., were C 
not so clear and the expression 'television screen' was constmed by the 
High Court to mean the in-built screen of a TV set and a separate screen 
used in TV projector was excluded. This view of the High Court bas been 
reversed by this Court. [168·B) 
Raja Video Parlour & Others v. State of Punjab & Others, Civil Appeals D 
arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14830·32, 16071-75 and 16076of1992 disposed 
of on 14.7.1993 set aside Raja Video Parlour & Others v. State of Punjab & 
Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 10150 of 1990 . 
M/s. Shankar Video & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Civil Ap-
peals arising out SLP(C) Nos. 13015 and 15302 of 1992 disposed of on E 
14.7.1993, relied on. 
1.3. From a perusal of the rules 98-100 of the Punjab Cinemas 
(Regulation) Rules, 1952, it is evident that they include within their ambit 
exhibition of pictures through T.V. Projectors on a separate wide screen. 
[167-FJ 
F 
1.4. These provisions show that the screen can be separate and need 
not be in built in the television set. [168-A) 
1.5. The definition of the term 'cinematograph' under Section 2(a) of 
the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 includes VCR/VCP as well as G 
T.V. Projector. [167-B) 
1.6. Exhibition of a pre-recorded cassette of a film through VCR/VCP 
and TV projector on a separate wide screen is covered by the Rules and the 
appellant must obtain a license under the Rules for carrying on the busi· 
ness of runninr video parlour. [168-D) 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Raja Video Parlours & Others v. State of Punjab & Others, Civil 
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14830-32, 16071-75 and 16076 of 1992 
disposed of on 14.7.1993; Mis. Shanker Video &Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 
& Ors., Civil Appeals arising.out of SLP(C) Nos. 13015 and 15302 of 1992 
disposed of rm 14.7.1993; Mis. LOXJni Video Theatres & Others v. State of 
B Haryana & Others, Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs(C) Nos. 2344/92, 
2219/92, 2348/92, 2255/92 and 4706/92 d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.