HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No.5132 of 2002 DATED: 26.03.2010 Between: Viswasanthi Theater, Eluru .. Petitioner And The Films Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No.5132 of 2002 ORDER:- Assailing the demand of rentals of Rs.79,493/-, purported to be the dues payable to the respondent, vide proceedings No.C-2/199/2001-02/VA, dated 18-02-2002, this writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is the owner and licencee of a cinema theater viz., Viswasanti Theater, Eluru. The petitioner claims that in the year 1995, the respondent voluntarily stopped collecting rentals and also did not supply short films which are meant for exhibition in the theaters. The petitioner states that when the respondent started collecting rentals for exhibiting the short films without supplying the films, the dispute was agitated in a batch of writ petitions in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court by judgment dated 31-08-1995 held that the exhibitors need not pay any amount to the Films Division for screening Indian News Reels, and based on the said judgment, the A.P. Film Chambers of Commerce issued a Circular on 08- 12-1995, whereby the exhibitors in Andhra Pradesh were requested to keep the payments payable to the Films Division in abeyance until further orders. Subsequently, the judgment of the Delhi High Court was reversed by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Motion Picture Association[1]. Consequently, the owners of the theatres were directed to pay their respective arrears. After the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondent issued the impugned demand notice and called upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to above. 3. Heard. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.Durga Prasad submitted that the respondent did not supply the short films during the period from 04-11-1995 to 15-07-1999. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the rentals. He further submitted that in similar set of circumstances, a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.298 of 2001 and Batch, dated 21-08-2001, directed that the liability of the appellants has to be determined on resolution of the dispute as to whether short films had been supplied to them or not, and such dispute has to be determined in appropriate Forum and not in a writ petition. 5. It is seen from the averments made in the writ petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is whether the respondent-Films Division actually supplied films during the disputed period and if so, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded under the impugned demand order No.C2/199/01-02/VA, dated 18-02-2002. The liability to pay rentals depends on the essential question of fact as to whether the 1st respondent had actually supplied the short films or not. 6. From the impugned demand notice dated 18-02-2002, it is not clear whether the respondent had, in fact, supplied the short films. The impugned demand notice discloses that the petitioner had not cleared the Government dues of Rs.79,493/- as on 31-03-2000. From the said notice, it cannot be ascertained that whether the films had actually been supplied to the petitioner. 7. The respondent has also not filed any counter in order to appreciate this factual aspect. 8. Nonetheless, as observed supra, the learned Division Bench of this Court, in a similar fact situation, disposed of the matters as noted above. 9. Following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of with a direction that the liability of the petitioner has to be determined only after ascertaining the fact whether short films had actually been supplied to the petitioner or not. Until such decision is taken by the respondent and communicate the same to the petitioner, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice No.C2/199/01-02/VA, dated 18-02-2002. The respondent is further directed to pass fresh orders after considering the matter as stated above. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 26th March 2010 KVR [1] 1999 (6) S.C.C. 150