IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 92 of 2010 Harish Malhotra ……… Appellant. Versus District Magistrate, Haridwar and another .……. Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 09.09.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Appellant is a cable operator within the meaning of Section 2 (aa) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. He has obtained registration to operate as such cable operator. As such cable operator, the appellant retransmits through his cable service programmes of different broadcasters. In view of being so registered, the appellant is entitled to transmit, as well as retransmit broadcasts, but then, by reason thereof, he is not absolved from discharging his liabilities and obligations pertaining to and including Cinematography Act. With effect from 1st April 2009, the appellant started two private channels. Thereby he started transmitting live programmes of Haridwar and various other programmes of interest held at Haridwar and also Hindi songs and movies. In order to do so, there is no dispute that the appellant is taking assistance of a video recorder. The appellant approached the District Magistrate, Haridwar to obtain necessary licence / permission to do what he was doing. The District Magistrate held out that he cannot be permitted to do what he was doing. Appellant, accordingly, approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was decided by this Court on 13th April 2010. In the writ petition, it was contended that the petitioner (appellant herein) is ready to do whatever is required to be done for the purpose of running the said two private channels and, accordingly, he is agreeable to approach such authority and to obtain such licences / permissions as are required to be 2 approached / obtained. The appellant also pointed out that a Division Bench, in a writ petition filed by Maxmode Cable Television Network had issued certain directions in favour of Maxmode Cable Television Network, but ignoring such directions and the laws applicable to the field, the District Magistrate unjustly refused to permit the appellant to run the said two private channels. The Court, taking note of the order passed in the case filed by Maxmode Cable Television Network, directed the appellant to apply for licence and to deposit licence fee and other taxes under the Uttarakhand Act, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, which Act applies to the State of Uttarakhand. Accordingly, the appellant applied. Upon consideration of the said application, the District Magistrate directed the appellant, amongst others, to pay a sum of ` 11,88,500 as licence fee under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 17 of the U.P. Cinemas (Reg. of Exhibition by Means of Video) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Rules’) made in exercise of power under Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. The said Rules, there is no dispute, also apply to the State of Uttarakhand. The reason for directing payment of licence fee of ` 11,88,500 was that the video output generated by the appellant, while running the said two private channels, is viewed in 11,885 screens. 2. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 17 of the said Rules makes it abundantly clear that in the event video from one source is displayed on a number of television screens, an additional licence fee of ` 100 per year shall be levied for each such screen. Taking note of the provisions contained in Rule 17 (2) of the said Rules, a learned Single Judge of this Court refused to interfere with the said claim of the District Magistrate, as was impugned in the writ petition. The writ petitioner (appellant herein) is, therefore, before us. 3. A look at the Act and the said Rules would make it abundantly clear that a licence is required for displaying on the screen materials through the means of video at a specified place. Therefore, if at a specified place such displaying is done in more than one screen, in terms of Rule 17 (2) of the said Rules, additional fee of ` 100 per year is 3 leviable for each such screen. Videography is generated for being displayed at the premises of the appellant, but they are displayed in screens outside the premises of the appellant. The said Rules do not contemplate what would be the licence fee in relation to such display of video. Since Rule 17(2) of the said Rules does not encompass a situation of the nature dealt with herein and the said Rule imposes a liability to pay a fee, requiring the same to be construed strictly, by applying the provisions contained in the said Rule, the appellant cannot be fastened with a liability, which is not contemplated in the said Rule. 4. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and allow the writ petition by quashing that part of the order of the District Magistrate, Haridwar dated 30th April 2010, impugned in the writ petition, whereby a licence fee of ` 11,88,500 was demanded from the appellant under Rule 17 (2) of the said Rules. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 09.09.2010 09.09.2010 Amit