lillll .^^^•;|^0 '&^i .•-llt-'''1 XI-HC-22 •STI^T^T R-ii^isn^T 9,'Vtl CTfScf 3^'^IFIRW, Oflltt'16, R<'tl^y (111CTI Stlliqi ^i^l^^qi , Ei?^. .|».v..)...»<V....y Wi; 200 31I^?T STdRK trfw 25/4/2005 Miss Maya Verma, Advoca^ Shri Parag Kotecha, Panel Heard. It is pointed out that the r^ decision of this Court in W.P. others). Leamed counsel for th^ relief. This petition was filed U challenging the notice dated 28-' whereby they have been directed through the Dish Antenna. The the High Court of M.P. on 21/1; the interim order to the followinj °bl'i|fcl<fl-l •<|tlt'lTffftefl'<F»l«i< ^sff^iTsn^r [e, for the petitioners. ^avryer, for the State. latter is such which is covered by a No.223/92 (Umesh Sharma and petitioners prays for the similar |y the petitioners on 11/12/1989 P-1989/3-10-1989 (Annexure-P/6), }iot to exhibit different programmes [matter came up for hearing before 1/1989 and the High Court passed sffect: 'Shri M.M. Agrawal,\ Jssue notice on I.A. operation of order 4 stayed.' The mafter again came up| interim order dated 21/12/1989 petitioners are permitted to onlj television programmes and not to| Thereafter, the Madhya Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (^ 1936) was amended and from 1 / 3-A 8s 3-B have been incorporatec| Learned Counsel for the resl pf 1936 has been amended, the si ,\Advocate, heard. fo.10899/89. Meanwhile, Annexure-P/ 6 shaU remain for hearing on 11/4/1991 and the tf/SLS modified to the extent that the jr use dish antenna for exhibiting luse it for showing films. Ifradesh Entertainments Duty and sreinafter referred to as the Act of \f 1999, Section 2(aaa) and Sections bondents contended that as the Act irvices of cable operators have been (<^^ir) ^c.' M 1 ;"\ XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f?qN?31^?T [fer Stllll'tlff '<c '.^- ^^- ^ \° ;^'^ 5^ -s 3^'^irai?pr, oTn<ris,fifli<iy Sii^iMatft ii*iMi sni.iicn r g^ 200 3ii^<i e'wiWHfStf certlain on brought within the ambit of the f the Act. It is submitted that with before carrying on the cable that the petitioners are canying complying with the requirements. Leamed counsel for -thel contended that the amendment petitioners and that iswhy they t{ submitted that the petitioners 4 carr\dng on the business in public) Hawing considered the facD and material on record and in vi| which have been made in the Act Court, the matter has to be Let that be examined. The petitii passed as expeditiously as possib] months from the date of receipt of| Subject to what has been disposed ofWith liberty to avail tl| ict and they are now regulated by conditions have to be complied 4peration work. It is also submitted the cable operation workwithout in case such an occasion arises in C 't-,. °hi'iit<-t<(i-f t<iti(rt)"ffrs'<o <Ri«i<. 5t;3lf^IT3I1^RT exadiined petitioners on the other hand ^?ould not have any effect on the rere continuing the business. It is ^re not covered, as they are not place. ' |s andcircumstancesofthecase sw of the aforesaid afflendments, ^n 1/5/1999, in the opinion of this by respondents no.2 and 3. ^ners may be heard and orders be |e preferably within a period of two Ithis order. stated above, this petition stands |ie remedy available under the law ;luding the filing of the petition. Sd/- Fakhruddiii Judge (<ft^^^r)