LexTHE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER versus BRIJ NIWAS DAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ·- 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 145 the land of which it continued in possession under that grant was not one by the State Government or that the State Government had not the authority to make the grant. If such contention ie both not open to the C01;poration and not tenable on the merits, it would follow that the impugned notification was fully justified by the provisions under s. 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act. We therefore hold that the impugned notifi· cation was valid, though for reasons very different from those on which its validity was sus.tained ·by the learned Judges of the High Court: The appeal · fails and is dismissed. In view however· of the concession made by the respondent before. the High ([Jourt which misled the learned Judges we consider it proper to direct that each party ·should bear its costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER .· v. BRTJ NIWAS .OAS (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RA.JAGOPALA AYYANGAR . and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Oinemalograp\ Films-Indigenous films-Cultural films- Ezhibilion .<>f-Condit-ion of license-f."!'otification-T'ires of- Cintma1ograph .-let, 1.952 (Act. 37 of 1952), s. 12(4). ---- The rrspondent was an exhibitor of films in a public cinema theatre. u •. der the powers conferred by s. 12(4) . of the Cinematograph Act a notification was issued which among other things provided that a certain percentage Of ~ 11approvcd film" should be sho\.\·n at every performance an<l that film• produced in Indi• and certifie<l hy the Central 19~1 Munisipal Corpo,.ati1n •f ,; 1Ibalp-rr v. Stal• oJ Madhya Pradc•h 19(;;,;, Thi Chi•/ Co . .,,mi••ion,r, Ajm,r '· BriJNiwas Du 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] Government as Cultural films wiH be deemed to be "approv- ed films". In condition No. 22 of the license issued to the respondent the above terms pf the notification \••ere substan- tially reproduced. On the failure of the respondent to pay a certain amount to the Ministry of Information for the supply of "approved films" the Ministry threatened to stop further supply of "approved films" to the respondent. There upon he filed a writ in the High Court by which he challen· ged the vire• of s. 12(4), the notification and the conditions in the license. The main contention was thats. 12(4) comp· rised two categories of films, namely, "cultural films" and "indigenous films" and that the two categories were alterna- tive. Therefore it was urged that since condition No. 22 required that cultural films also should be produced in India the condition was bad. The High Co•."t upheld the validity of the section but struck down the conditions. The appel- lant appealed to this court on a certificate of fitness granted by the Hig/l Court. The sole question before the Supre111e Court was whethrr the notification an<l condition No. 22 v-.•ere valid within the terms of'· 12(4). 1 • .• Held, that the words "indigenous films" are gt"neral and unqualified in their contrnts and n1ust incJude in their ordi- _ _. nary and accepted sen~e cultural as "·ell as other filnt'L To read the words "indigenous films'' as meaning" indigenous films' 1 other than cultural fihns would be to cut do\-\'n the plain and ordinary s~nse of the Wllr<ls and to imp:lrl into the c:nactment word~ which arr: not there. Tbc court \vould proceed on the basi-. that the L~gislature meant prcciseJy what it said. The wqrds 'produced in Tndia' in the impug- nr:d notification and condition !\":"o. 22 are not to he read as a qualification ann~xed to the first category of films but re~erablc to the second category and would be perfectly • intra.,;,., under s. 12(4). The notification in so far as it requires that cultural films should have been produced in India is within'· 12(4) and condition No. 22 which has been framed in accordance therewith is vaJid. Crvn. APPEi.LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 310 or 1961. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1958, of th« J:ajasthan High Ccmrt (Jaipur • 2 S.C.R .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 147 Bench) at Jaipur Writ Application No. 237 of 1956. S. N. Sanyal,. Additional Solicitor-General of India, S. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the appel- !ents and Interveners. The respondent did not appear. 1962. April 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J .--This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.