DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWAR AND ANR.versusHARISH MALHOTRA

                  [2014) 13 S.C.R. 1383


     DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWARANDANR.                    A
                            V.

                   HARISH MALHOTRA
             (Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2014)
                                                             B
                  DECEMBER 09, 2014
   [M. Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
       Uttar Pradesh Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by
Means of Videos) Rules, 1988 - r. 17(2) - Applicability of -
To the cable operator registered under Cable Television C
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cinematograph Act,
1952- For running private video channels - Held: Payment
of fee ulr. 17(2) does not have statutory sanction - In the
absence of the sanction, liability to pay the fee cannot be
imposed on the cable operator- The act of the operator in D
running private video channels would not fall within the
expression 'Exhibition by means of Video' within the meaning
of s. 2(aa) of Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955- Uttar Pradesh
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955- s. 2(aa)- Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995- Cinematograph Act, 1952 , E
- Uttar Pradesh (Entertainment and Betting) Tax Act, 1979.
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD : 1. The provisions of the U.P. (Cinemas)
Regulation Act, 1955 do not apply to the Respondent (the F
cable operator) and for the reason the expression
"Exhibition by means of Video" within the meaning of
s.2(aa) of Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955,
is not applicable to the respondent. Thus, Rule 17 is also
not applicable to the respondent. [Para 14)(1389-B-C]      G
      2. So long as there is no statutory sanction for
  imposition of a tax, no liability of paying a fee can be
. imposed relying on the alleged "consent" or
  acquiescence to the same imposition in part. The
                                                             H
                           1383
1384         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A     statutory sanction cannot be found under the Uttar
       Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 or any
       rules made thereunder. [Para 15)(1389-C-E]
        3. From a plain reading of the relevant provisions it
   is clear that the same are not applicable to the
 B respondent and hence the demand as well as the
   Recovery Certificate dated 6.8.2011 issued under Rule
   17(2) of the Rules are bad in law. [Para 16][1389-D-E]
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 C 10855 of2014.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2010 of the
       High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No.
       92of2010.
            Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv., for the Appellants.
 D
            R. K. Raizada, Sr. Adv., Vivek Gupta, Amitesh Mishra
       (For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.), Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           'PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.
 E
            1. Leave granted.
         2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment
   and order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the High Court of
   Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No.92 of 2010,
 F whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while allowing
   the appeal filed by the respondent set aside the order dated
   11.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
   No.671 of 2010 and quashed that part of the demand order
   dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar,
 G whereby a license fee of Rs.11,88,500/- was demanded from
   the respondent.
        3. The brief matrix of facts is that the Respondent is a
   Cable Television Network Operator in Haridwar as defined
   under Section 2(aa) of the Cable Television Networks
 H (Regulation) Act, 1995. He obtained necessary Licence to run
    DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWARANDANR. v.                            1385
   HARISH MALHOTRA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

the Cable Network. As a Cable Operator, he down-links the A
signals from Satellite and retransmits the same through his
Cable Network System to different broadcasters. He is entitled
to transmit and retransmit broadcasts and is bound by the
liabilities and obligations pertaining to and including the
Cinematography Act. The respondent started two private B
channels with effect from April 1, 2009 and thereby he started
transmitting live programmes of Haridwar and other
programmes of interest, including Hindi songs and movies,
with the assistance of a video recorder. On being informed
that a separate license was required to run these channels, he c
approached the District Magistrate, Haridwar for obtaining the
necessary license. The District Magistrate rejected his
application in view of the restrictions imposed under Rules
11 ( 1) and 11 (2) of the Uttarakhand Video Rules, 1988.
       4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid rejection by         D
filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.4.2010 in terms
of an earlier order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Petition No.375 of 2006 and he was directed to
apply for license and deposit license fee and other taxes under        E
the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 which
applies to the State of Uttarakhand. The respondent filed an
application for the purpose and the District Magistrate, after
considering the application, directed the respondent to pay a
sum of Rs.11,88,500/- as license fee under Sub-Rule (2) of             F
Rule 17 of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by
means of Video) Rules, 1988 made in exercise of power under
Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act,
1955. Sub-Rule 1(2) thereof gives the scope of the Rules. From
a plain reading of the text, the applicability of the said rules       G
has been confined to video libraries and exhibition by means
of video. The term "Exhibition by means of Video" has not been
defined under the rules, but it has been defined under Section
2(aa) of the 'Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955,
which reads as under:                                                  H.
1386         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A          "Exhibition by means of Video" means exhibition in
            public, on payment for admission, of moving pictures
            or series of pictures by playing or replaying a pre-
            recorded cassette by means of video cassette player
            whether on screen of a television set or videoscope or
 B          otherwise".
          5. The State of Uttarakhand had adopted the· said Act
   and Rules framed in exercise of powers under section 13 of
   the Act, namely the U.P. Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by
   means of Video) Rules 1988 had also been adopted. The
 C District Magistrate ordered that in view of Section 2(aa) quoted
   above, the process of running video channel private channel
   is within the definition of Section 2(aa) and mandatory license
   is required for that under Section 3(b) of the said Act. The
   operators covered under Section 2(aa) of the U.P. Cinema
 D (Regulation of Exhibition by means of video) Rules, 1988, are
   liable to pay fee under Sections 17(1) and 17(2). Section 17(2)
   of the said Rules reads as under:
            "In case there is any such arrangement where exhibition
            is given by means of video on a number of different
 E
            television screens, video screens or video scopes, an
            additional license fee of Rs. 100 per year or part thereof,
            shall be levied for each such screen, fed by the said
            apparatus, by whatsoever name it may be called."
 F          6. The respondent complied with the payment of license .
       fee under section 17(1) of the U.P. Cinema Rules, 1988 by
       paying Rs. 2,400/- but denied the applicability of the 1988
       Rules and Rule 17(2) thereof and consequently denied
       payment of license fee of Rs.11,88,500/-.
 G            7. The learned Judge in the High Court observed that a
       license is required for displaying on the screen materials
       through the means of video at specified place. Therefore if at
       a specified place such displaying is done on more than one
       screen, then in terms of Rule 17(2), additional fee of Rs.1001-
.H     is leviable for such screen. Videography is generated for being
    DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWARANDANR. v.                  1387
   HARISH MALHOTRA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

displayed at the premises of the respondent but is displayed A
in screens outside the premises of the respondent. In view of
this, the said Rules do not encompass a situation in the present
case and the rule imposes a liability to pay a license fee.
Construing the· Rules strictly, the respondent cannot be
fastened with a liability. Consequently, the Learned Judges of B
the High Court quash.ed that part of the order of the learned
District Magistrate dated 301h April 2010 whereby a license
fee of Rs.11,88,500 was demanded from the respondent under
 Rule 17(2).
      8. It is claimed by the appellants that subsequently, the C
respondent without obtaining any license under Section 3(b)
of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, started two private
channels and began transmitting live programmes. He was
informed that the process of running video channel is within
the definition of video movie picture and it is mandatory to D
obtain separate permission/license for it. The application for
license was rejected on 18.2.2010 as it was against Rules
11(1) and 11(2) of the U.P. Rules 1988.
      9. In W.P. (C) No.226 of 2010, the respondent never E
disputed the applicability of the Rules. The U.P. Cinema
(Regulation) Act, 1955 was enacted to regulate exhibition by
means of video and cinematograph. The State of Uttarakhand
has adopted the Act under Section 86 of U.P. State
Reorganization Act. The State of U.P. in exercise of power F
under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, framed U.P. Cinema
(Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules, 1988
which have also been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand.
The respondent is a cable operator registered under the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and under the
CinematographAct, 1952. Under these Acts, he renders cable G
services by down-loading signals from the Satellite for
distribution to multiple subscribers. For showing any other
programme on separate video channel, he will be covered
 under Section 2(aa) of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955
and is required to obtain a separate license.                 H
1388       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A       10. In pursuance of Section 21 of the Cable Television
   Network Act, 1995, the provisions of the Cinematograph Act,
   including the programme code, are fully applicable to the Cable
   operator. The respondent got himself registered under Section
   3 by depositing Rs.500/- as registration fee. The respondent
 B wants to run two private channels subscribing to 11,885 TV
   screens. In view of the above, respondent is covered under
   Section 2(aa) of the U.P. Cinema Rules, 1988 and is liable to
   pay fee under Rule 17.
         11. Thus, by conduct the respondent accepted the Rules,
 C as he submitted an undertaking before the Court to comply
   with the Rules. He also deposited a license fee of Rs. 2400/-
   per year as imposed under Rule 17(1). The respondent cannot
   choose and be selective as to which Rules will be applicable
   to him. The Respondent has also given an undertaking to
 D comply with Rules 17(1) and 17(2). This Court in Laxmi Video
   Theatres & Ors. v. State of Harayna and Ors., (1993) 3 SCC
   715, while considering the expression "Cinematograph" under
   the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and its applicability on VCR and
   VCP which was developed in 1970, held that a definition must
 E be given a meaning which takes into account the subsequent
   scientific developments in the field.
         12. The claim of the respondent is that the business
   carried out by him does not come within the purview of Section
 F 2(aa) of the U.P. Rules 1988, and thus the liability of fee
   imposed under Rule 17(2) is bad in law. From a plain reading
   of Section 2(aa), it is clear that it would not apply to the
   Respondent who is a cable operator telecasting video
   channels "to the public" and not "in public". It is an established
 G principle of statutory interpretation that plain meaning is to be
   given to words contained in a statute.
          13. The notification No. 145/XXVll (5) Entertainment Tax/
   2005 dated 17.8.2005 doesn't apply to the respondent as it
   seeks to tax "Exhibition by means of Video". The respondent's
 H activities are not covered by the aforementioned expression.
    DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HARIDWARANDANR. v.                         1389
   HARISH MALHOTRA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

For the definition of the said expression the U.P. Cinemas          A
Regulation Act, 1955 has to be referred even though the
notification has been issued under U.P. (Entertainment and
Betting) Tax Act, 1979. The expression can be said to be in
pari materia and definition of a term under one Act, can be
used to interpret provisions of rules under the other Act.          B
     14. The provisions of the U.P. (Cinemas) Regulation Act,
1955 do not apply to the Respondent and for the reason the
expression "Exhibition by means of Video" within the meaning
of 2(aa) of the said Regulation is not applicable to the
respondent. Thus, Rule 17 is also not applicable to the             C
respondent.
       15. As long as there is no statutory sanction for imposition
of a tax, no liability of paying a fee can be imposed relying on
the alleged "consent" or acquiescence to the same imposition D
in part. The statutory sanction cannot be found under the Uttar
Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 or any rules
made thereunder.
     . 16. From a plain reading of the relevant provisions it is
clear that the same are not applicable to the respondent and         E
hence the demand as well as the Recovery Certificate dated
6.8.2011 issued under Rule 17(2) of the Rules are bad in law.
We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court. This appeal is accordingly
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.             F
      17. I.A. No.5 of 2013 application for intervention is
allowed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                             Appeal dismissed.