JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition fails on the short ground that there is no infringement of any legal right of the petitioner so as to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Neel Kamal Movies, a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, has filed this writ petition on the allegation that the petitioner carries on business inter alia. as producer of Cinematoraphic films. In or about 1977, the petitioner produced a film 'SAFED HATHI' in hindi language in Eastman colour. According to the petitioner the Central Board of Film Censor certified the said film as a wholly 'educational' film. Further the case of the petitioner is that after obtaining the said certificate, the petitioner through various distributors exhibited the said film in various States of India, namely, Gujarat, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Chandigarh, Meghalaya, Kerala, Assam, Mizorem, Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Jaminu & Kashmir. Tripura, Bihar, Maharashtra, Goa Daman & Deli, Karnataka, Orissa and Nest Bengal. According to the petitioner exhibition of the said film could only he possible because the appropriate authority and/or the relevant State Governments had exempted the said film front payment of entertainment- tax. The petitioner has further stated that but for the aforesaid exemption it would not have been commercially feasible to release the said film for public exhibition particularly for children. It has also been stated that in a tweeting held in Delhi on November 4, 1977 attended by concerned Ministers of all State Governments and presided over by the Union of Minister for Information and Broadcasting, it was decided and agreed that all films that win National or state Awards and all children films should be exempted from entertainment tax in the States. By a letter, dated April 11, 1978 circulated to the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments, the Central Government duly apprised them about the said decision and in the said letter a request had been made to the various State Governments to exempt the film 'SAFED HATHI' from payment of entertainment tax. By a letter, dated April 11, 1978 circulated to the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments, the Central Government duly apprised them about the said decision and in the said letter a request had been made to the various State Governments to exempt the film 'SAFED HATHI' from payment of entertainment tax. It has been further alleged that the said film had been produced by the petitioner for wider circulation and exhibition in India and although the said filth was for sometime exhibited in sum of the cities of India, the children of the State of Rajasthan at-large misted the amusing and educational flavour because of prohibitive price of cinema tickets. The petitioner since the year 1977 made several representations in writing to the respondents from time to time praying for exemption of the said film from payment of entertainment tax, but for some reason or the other the prayer of the petitioner was not accepted. The State of Rajasthan did not accede to the request, which is evident from letters, dated December 3, 1977, January 9, 1978 and ,June 17, 1978. The petitioner however, further persued the matter and the respondents by letter, dated August 17, 1978, asked the petitioner to supply the true copies and; or photocopies of the exemption orders of fifteen States granting tax exemption to the said film. It is further alleged that on the request of the respondents, the said film was exhibited at a special show at Jaipur to the Chairman and other members of tax exemption committee and so far as the petitioner is aware, the said committee strongly recommended the case for exemption of the said film front payment of entertainment tax. Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, also by letter, dated August 17, 1980, addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan strongly under the State Government to exempt the said film from payment of entertainment tax. However, the petitioner received a letter, dated June 4, 1980 containing the following decision of the respondents : "With reference to your letter No. nil, dated May 12, 1980, on the subject cited above, it is stated that it is not possible to grant exemption from payment of entertainment tax to the film -'SAFED HATHI". However, the petitioner received a letter, dated June 4, 1980 containing the following decision of the respondents : "With reference to your letter No. nil, dated May 12, 1980, on the subject cited above, it is stated that it is not possible to grant exemption from payment of entertainment tax to the film -'SAFED HATHI". In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking an appropriate writ order or direction to rescind, recall, cancel and withdraw the said purported decision contained in the letter, dated June 4, 1980 and to act in accordance with law for exempting the film 'SAFE'D HATHI from payment of any entertainment tax of any nature whatsoever in the State of Rajasthan. 3. In reply to the writ petition, the State of Rajasthan apart from other objections has inter alia contested the writ petition mainly on the ground that there exemption by other States does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim exemption from payment of entertainment tax from the State of Rajasthan as the State Acts differ from State to State subject to custom, financial conditions of the State and its public. 'The state of Rajasthan is in accuse financial stringency and it is not possible to grant exemption to the film as it will adversely affect the revenue of the State. The letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is only directory in nature. The Finance Department had applied its mind and then issued a letter in question, after thoroughly examining every aspect of the case and well within the statutory powers. It has also been alleged that the entire scheme of levy and collection of entertainment tax as embodied in the Rajasthan Entertainments (and Advertisements) Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in particular in Sections 3(5) and (8) and Sections 4, 5, 5B, 7 and 10(3) of the Act does not affect any right of the petitioner. Section 7 of the Act provides for a concession and to claim such concession is not a legal right. Section 7 of the Act provides for a concession and to claim such concession is not a legal right. It has been further alleged that it is evident from the original application filed by the petitioner in the prescribed form and its forwarding letter an all subsequent representations that the same have not been made under Section 7 (i) of the Act, nor was there any claim that the film was of wholly educational character, nor was there any prayer made for a certificate of exemption under Section 7(1) of the Act. Emphasis has been laid that even from the documents submitted by the petitioner the film has been characterised as a 'children film as well as educational' but not 'wholly' educational film. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission, made by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. The preamble of the Act reads as under: "An Act to impose a tax in respect of admission to entertainments (and Advertisements) in the State of Rajasthan. Whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy by the State Government of a tax in respect of admission to theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainments (and a tax in respect of certain form of advertisements in such places) in the State of Rajasthan and for the payment of compensation to the local authorities now levying such a tax." Thus the above preamble clearly shows that it is an Act to impose a tax in respect of admission to entertainments. It has been enacted to provide for the levy by the State Government of a tax in respect of admission to theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainments. Section 4 of the Act provides that there shall be levy charged and paid to the State Government on all payments for admission to an entertainment, a tax at such rate not exceeding 100% of the payment for admission, as may be notified by the State Government from time to time. Section 5 of the Act lays down that the entertainments tax shall be levied in respect of each person admitted on payment and shall be calculated and paid on the number of admission Sub-sec. (2) of Section 5 of the Act clearly provides that the entertainments tax shall be due and recoverable from the proprietor. Section 5 of the Act lays down that the entertainments tax shall be levied in respect of each person admitted on payment and shall be calculated and paid on the number of admission Sub-sec. (2) of Section 5 of the Act clearly provides that the entertainments tax shall be due and recoverable from the proprietor. Sub-Sec. (3) of Section 5 provides that the proprietor shall submit such returns relating to payments for admission to an entertainment to such authority, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Clause (8) of Section 3 defines proprietor as under: "Proprietor in relation to an entertainment includes any person responsible for, or for the time being in charge of the management thereof". "Sec. 6(2) of the Act lays down that no proprietor shall admit any person to an entertainment without payment for admission thereof or at the concession rates except in accordance with the prescribed conditions. Then there is Section 7 of the Act which deals with non-liability to tax on payment for admission to certain entertainment. As the claim for exemption has been sought under this Section, it is reproduced in extenso: "Sec. 7. Liability to tax on payments for admission to certain entertainment-(1) The entertainment tax shall not be levied where the State Government is satisfied:- (a) That the entire gross proceeds of such entertainment are devoted to philanthropic, religious or charitable purposes without any charge on such proceeds for any expenses of the entertainment, or (b) that such entertainment is of a wholly educational character, or (c) that such entertainment is provided for purposes which are wholly or partly educational, cultural or scientific by a society not conducted or established for profit, or (d) that such entertainment is provided by a society not conducted for profit and established solely for the purpose of promoting the public health or the interests of the industry of agriculture or of a manufacturing industry or of any branch thereof and consists solely of an exhibition of- (i) articles which are of material interest in connection with questions relating to the public health, or (ii) The products of any such industry or branch thereof for promoting the interests of which the society exists, or (iii) materials, machinery, appliances or food stuffs used in the production of those products. 2. 2. Whenever, in the opinion of the State Government reasonable grounds exist for doing so in the public interest, the State Government may, by general or special order notified in the Official Gazette, reduce or remit, whether prospectively or retrospectively, entertainments tax which any entertainment or entertainments is chargable. Section 10 of the Act provides for offences and penalties and sub-sec. (3) (a) of this Section clearly lays down that the proprietor of an entertainment or any person employed by him in any place of entertainment who admit any person to any place of entertainment in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of Section 6 of the Act, or (a) the proprietor of an entertainment who (i) fails to pay the tax due from him under this Act within the prescribed time; or (ii) fraudulently evades the payment of tax due from under this Act, or (iii) contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules framed there- under for which no other penalty has been provided under this Act, shall be liable to pay by way of penalty. 5. A perusal of the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions contained in various Sections it is abundantly clear that the entertainment tax has been imposed in respect of admission to entertainments in theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainments. The liability to pay such tax falls on the proprietor of such place of entertainment and which includes any person responsible for, or for the time bung in charge of the management thereof. The entertainments tax shall be due and recoverable from the proprietor only and he is required to submit returns in the prescribed manner. The liability to pay penalty under Section 10 of the Act also lies on the proprietor of the place of entertainment. Thus, the above provisions leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner who is only producer of the film 'SAFED HATHI nowhere conies in the picture at any stage of the levy or payment of entertainments tax. The petitioner in these circumstances has no legal right to claim exemption from payment of entertainment tax on the film produced by it. Form HH has been prescribed for applying for exemption under Section 7(1) & (2) of the Act as envisaged under Rule 22(9) of the Rajasthan Entertainments (and Advertisements)'Tax Rules, 1957. The petitioner in these circumstances has no legal right to claim exemption from payment of entertainment tax on the film produced by it. Form HH has been prescribed for applying for exemption under Section 7(1) & (2) of the Act as envisaged under Rule 22(9) of the Rajasthan Entertainments (and Advertisements)'Tax Rules, 1957. Column (I)(a) of this farm clearly envisages name and address of the proprietor applying for exemption. Column (ii) mentions about the number of shows/performances proposed to be organised together with details of the date and time of each entertainment/performance. Column (iii) lays down place for entertainment. Similarly there are other columns also which require the applicant to mention the nature of entertainment, purpose for which the gross of the sale proceeds will be utilised, nature of exemption and rate of ticket for each class and number of tickets proposed to be issued, sold for each class and performance and seating capacity for each class. The above provisions of the form also go to show in clear terms that the particulars mentioned in this form can only be given by a proprietor of the place of entertainment. It is not possible for producer of the film to furnish any datas or particulars which are necessary to be filled in Such form. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner in this regard which has been placed on record of this case goes to show that he has only mentioned its name as - Neel Kamal Movies' against the column (iii) and address of the proprietor applying for exemption' and against column (iii) it has been mentioned 'in full Rajasthan' and the other columns have been left totally blank. This, in my view, also goes to prove that no such application can be filed by a producer of a film under Section 7(l) of the Act. 6. It was contended by Mr. L. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that it would not he possible for the petitioner to find out the exhibitors of this film unless exemption from entertainments tax is given to the film. It was submitted that unless the exemption was granted. 6. It was contended by Mr. L. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that it would not he possible for the petitioner to find out the exhibitors of this film unless exemption from entertainments tax is given to the film. It was submitted that unless the exemption was granted. it would not be possible for the children in the State of Rajasthan to pay full price of the tickets and thus the children of the State of Rajasthan would be deprived of the film SAFED HATHI' which is of wholly educational character. This arguments is wholly irrelevant to the grant of exemption of entertainment tax under the provisions of the Act. The question whether the proprietors of the cinemas in the State of Rajasthan would accept or not the film -SAFED HATHI' without exemption of entertainment tax, is a matter between the petitioner and the proprietors. The petitioner cannot be considered as a person aggrieved so as to invoke the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for seeking direction to the respondents for giving exemption of entertainments tax. There is no infringement of any legal right of the petitioner and it remote possibility of his suffering some indirect loss cannot bring it in the category of aggrieved person so as to claim exemption it, tax from this Court. I and supported in the above view by a decision of M. L. Shrimal, J. in M/s United Pictures v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., W.I.N. 1981 page 397 . 7. Mr. Sharma, Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Municipal Council, Jodhpur v. Ms Parekh Automobiles: WLN 1)80 page 107 and Bhanwarlal v. Rajasthan State & ors, AIR 1953 Raj. 180 . The above two cases render no assistance to the petitioner. In Bhanwarlal v. Rajasthan State & Ors. (supra) it was held that "where an entertainment tax levied by the Municipal Board on the cinema goers and collected by the proprietor of the cinema who is also responsible for paying it to the Board, is found to be illegal the proprietor can maintain an application under Article 226 against the illegal levy, he being a person interested in the matter". In this case the applicant was the proprietor of a cinema in Pali and as such readers no assistance to the petitioner who is not a proprietor of a cinema but a producer of a film. In this case the applicant was the proprietor of a cinema in Pali and as such readers no assistance to the petitioner who is not a proprietor of a cinema but a producer of a film. Municipal Council, Jodhpur was challenged by M/s Parekh Automobiles was a case where the levy of octroi by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur was challenged by M/s Parekh Automobiles and Sukh Sampat Raj who were the owners of the Petrol Pump where the Petroleum products were stored and supplied by the Oil Corporation. The octroi was realised by the Municipal Council from the Oil Corporation and in that connection it was held that the petitioner was undoubtedly pre judicially affected by the act of the Municipal Council in charging octroi in respect of goods supplied to it by the Oil Corporation and the fact that the octroi in question was realised by the Municipal Council from the Oil Corporation was not ground for holding that the petitioner could not maintain the petition even though it was the petitioner who had ultimately to pay the octroi. In the above case the petitioner was ultimately required to pay octroi and thus was an aggrieved person in time matter of payment of octroi, but in the case in hand before me the entertainments tax is never paid by the producer of a film at any stage. 8. Thus, I am clearly of the view that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. *******