G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions except two (Special Civil Application No. 1403 of 1987 and 5719 filed by Junagadh Cinema Association and Taj Talkies respectively are either individuals associations or clubs who have established what is popularly known as Video Cable Network. They have filed these petitions as concerned authorities have either searched their premises and seized their VCRs Disc Antennas and other materials connected with their Video Cable Network or threatened to search their premises and seize such materials on the ground that by establishing maintaining and working such Video Cable Network without ap- propriate licences they are committing breaches of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (Telegraph Act for short) Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 (Wireless Act for short) and Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act 1953 and also on the ground that by not paying entertainment duty payable under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act 1977 they are committing breach of the provisions of the said Act also. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they do not require any licence under any of those Acts nor are they under an obligation to pay any entertainment duty and therefore such authorities are not justified in searching their promises and seizing any of the things connected with the Video Cable Network. They therefore want this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the authorities from searching their promises and seizing their Video Cable Network or any part of it after declaring that establishing such Video Cable Network does not require any licence under the Telegraph Act Wireless Act or Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act (Bombay Cinema Act for short) and that they are not required to pay any entertainment duty under the Gujarat Enter- tainment Tax Act. In the alternative they have also prayed that the concerned authorities be directed to issue necessary licences to the petitioners. ( 3 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 1403/87 is filed by Junagadh Cinema Association and its President. In the alternative they have also prayed that the concerned authorities be directed to issue necessary licences to the petitioners. ( 3 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 1403/87 is filed by Junagadh Cinema Association and its President. They have filed the petition as the State Government Commissioner of Entertain- ment Tax Union of India and Post Master General Gujarat Circle are not taking any action against respondent No. 5 in the petition who is the owner of Video Cable Network with attached Disc Antenna and is maintaining and working the same without obtaining any licence under the Telegraph Act Wiereless Act and Bombay Cinema Act and without payment of entertainment tax under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act. Similar petition (SCA 5719 is filed by Taj Talkies claiming similar reliefs against respondents Nos. 1 to 9a in the petition. ( 4 ) MR. Vakharia learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners has raised the follow- ing four contentions and other learned Advocates appearing for other petitioners have adopted the same Though some other contentions have also been raised in the petitions they have not been pressed at the time of hearing : 1 Setting up Video Cable Network does not amount to establishing maintaining and work- ing telegraph and therefore it does not require any licence under the Telegraph Act. 2 Video Cable Network which is not attached with Disc Antenna cannot be called Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus and therefore the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act cannot apply to it In the alternative such Network is exempted under the Radio Television and Video Cassette Recorder Sets (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules 1985 3 Relay of broadcast by Doordarshan and showing films by playing pre-recorded cassettes do not attract the provisions of the Bombay Cinema Act and therefore establishing main- taining and working Video Cable Network does not require a licence under that Act nor can it be said that by setting up such Network the petitioners are committing breaches of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 4 By exhibiting other films and programmes through their Video Cable Network the petition- ers cannot be said to be admitting persons to entertainment on payment and therefore the provisions of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act cannot apply to them. 4 By exhibiting other films and programmes through their Video Cable Network the petition- ers cannot be said to be admitting persons to entertainment on payment and therefore the provisions of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act cannot apply to them. In order to appreciate these contentions it will be necessary to understand how Video Cable Network also known as Cable TV-Network is established and operated. Video Cable Network operators whoa are either persons providing such services or groups or associations of persons install a Video Cassette Recorder set. It is then connected with TV sots owned by the subscribers or the members of the association through a cable network. Some of these operators have also installed Disc Antennas and amplifiers which are connected with the VCR set. In case of groups or association of persons the Disc Antenna the amplifier attached to it V. C. R. and cable system connecting the above to the individual TV sets in the houses of the members of the groups are all common property. The individual TV sets in the houses of the members are owned individually by each member. They then contribute at regular intervals towards the expenses for maintaining and working the network. In case of an operator providing services the Disc Antenna the amplifier attached to it the VCR and the cable system connecting the above to the individual TV of the subscribers belong to him and the TV sets belong to the subscribers. He spends a substantial amount initially where it belongs to members of the group or association of persons they initially pay a substantial amount for purchasing the common equipment. Thereafter the subscribers have to make further payment to the operator at the regular intervals for the services rendered by him. Video Cable Network is established to convey better images of pictures broadcast by Door- darshan and also for broadcasting the programmes recorded in pre-recorded cassettes. The Disc Antenna is used for the purpose of receiving images from the atmosphere as broadcast from the Doordarshan and then the images are amplified by means of an amplifier which is attached to the Disc Antenna. Thus better magnetic waves are reproduced and then they are transmitted to the individual TV sets so as to enable the viewers to view the Doordarshan TV programmes with greater clarity. Thus better magnetic waves are reproduced and then they are transmitted to the individual TV sets so as to enable the viewers to view the Doordarshan TV programmes with greater clarity. The Disc Antenna can receive images or waves either from the relay stations of Doordarshan or from the Satellite directly. VCR Network is also used for showing programmes pre-recorded in the cassettes. Pre-recorded cassettes are played in the VCR set and the images and waves produced thereby are transmitted through cable to the TV sets of the subscribers or the members. Most of the VCR networks have Disc Antennas attached to them. ( 5 ) IT was stated by the learned Counsel Mr. Vakharia that VCR Cable Network operators are now showing only certified films or other unobjectionable pre-recorded programmes to the TV viewers who are either subscribers or members of their own association. It was rightly not disputed that by playing Video Cassette Recorder images and sounds are transmitted by wire. It was also not disputed that where the Network also consists of Disc Antenna signs signals writings images and sounds are received by the Disc Antenna and then transmitted to the TV sets. In spite of that it was urged that the VCR Cable Network Disc Antenna based or otherwise cannot be said to be telegraph as defined by the Telegraph Act and therefore establishing maintain- ing and working such Network without a licence does not violate any of the provisions of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act defines telegraph to mean telephone or any other instrument appliance material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs signals writing images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire visual or other electro-magnetic emissions radio waves or Hertzian waves galvanic electric opti- cal or magnetic means. In light of this definition it will have to be considered whether Video Cable Network can be said to be telegraph or not. In light of this definition it will have to be considered whether Video Cable Network can be said to be telegraph or not. It could not be disputed by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners that the VCR Cable Network is an apparatus used and capable of use for transmission or reception of signs signals images writings and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire visual or other electro-magnetic emissions radio waves or Hertzian waves galvanic electric optical or magnetic means It is therefore difficult to appreciate how a Video Cable Network cannot be regarded as telegraph In fact after some discussion in the Court the learned Advocates appearing for the VCR Cable Network operators conceded that such Networks would be covered by the definition of the word telegraph. However it was contended that a Video Cable Network would not amount to establishing maintaining and working of a tele- graph as contemplated by the Act because it is not a two-way system. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners what Section 4 which gives exclusive privilege of establishing main- taining and working telegraphs to the Central Government contemplates is a two-way system of sending and receiving messages and in respect of which the government or the telegraph au- thorities can take action under Sections 5 6 and 10 to 14 of the Act In our opinion there is no substance in this contention also. The powers which are conferred upon the Government and the telegraph authorities are for the purpose of enabling them to establish maintain and work telegraphs for the benefit of the public. Merely because such powers are conferred on the Gov- ernment and the telegraph authoritis it cannot be inferred that the telegraph contemplated by the Act is that telegraph in respect of which such powers can be exercised and penal action can be taken under Sections 23 to 25a 27 29 and 30 of the Telegraph Act. The word telegraph has been very widely defined by the Act. We do not find anything in Section 4 which can persuade us to give different meaning to the word telegraph for the purpose of that section. The learned Counsels were not able to point out anything from Section 4 on the basis of which we can say that the context requires a different meaning to be given to the word telegraph contemplated by that section. The learned Counsels were not able to point out anything from Section 4 on the basis of which we can say that the context requires a different meaning to be given to the word telegraph contemplated by that section. Similarly it is not possible to accept that Section 4 contemplates only a two-way sys- tem. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Mangal Sao AIR 1963 SC 445 while consider- ing whether a radio set receiving communications is a telegraph within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the Telegraph Act and whether a person who has a radio set for the purpose of using it can be said to be maintaining it or working it within the meaning of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act held that radio sot is a telegraph within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the Tele- graph Act and that when a person tunes his radio he can properly be said to operate upon it or manipulate it for the purpose of receiving communications and therefore he can be said to be a person who is maintaining as well as working it. Once it is accepted that Video Cable Net- work is a telegraph it will have to be held that a person in possession of such a Network and using the same is maintaining as well as working a telegraph. In case of such a person Section 4 would be attracted and therefore unless permitted by rules he will have to obtain a licence for establishing maintaining and working the same. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for Junagadh Cinema Association submitted that the Radio Television and Video Cassette Recorder Sets (Exemption from Licensing Require- ments) Rules 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Exemption Rules) also indirectly support this conclusion In our opinion the said rules have no bearning on the question arising under the Telegraph Act and therefore even indirectly no support can be gathered therefrom for the conclusion which we have reached. In our opinion the relevant rules are the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 and the relevant rule is Rule 472. In our opinion the relevant rules are the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 and the relevant rule is Rule 472. It provides that : any person may without a licence establish maintain and work a telegraph (not being a wireless telegraph) within the limits of a single building compound or estate : provided that no telegraph line pertaining to the telegraph shall pass over or under a public road. In view of this rule it will have to be held that a person who establishes maintains and works a Video Cable Network will have to obtain a licence if the conditions mentioned in the rule are not satisfied in his case. If the VCR Cable Network is confined to the limits of a single building compound or estate and no telegraph line pertaining to it passes over or under a public road then no licence is required for such a Net work. ( 7 ) AS regards the requirement of a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 (here- inafter referred to as the Wireless Telegraphy Act) Mr. Vakharia stated that though the peti- tioners whom he represents have established Cable Network with Disc Antenna the petition- ers are not now using the Disc Antenna as the viewers are now able to receive the broadcast by Doordarshan directly and they do not require any use of the Disc Antenna. He therefore submitted that their Video Cable Network cannot now be regarded as Wireless Telegraphy apparatus and therefore the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act do not apply to them. For considering the validity of this submission he first referred to the relevant provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the rules. The Wireless Telegraphy Act has been enacted with a view to regulate wireless telegraphy apparatus. Wireless communication is defined by Section 2 (1) to mean any transmis- sion emission or reception of any nature by means of electricity magnetism or radio waves or Hertzian waves without the use of wires or other continuous electrical conductors between the transmitting and the receiving apparatus. Wireless communication is defined by Section 2 (1) to mean any transmis- sion emission or reception of any nature by means of electricity magnetism or radio waves or Hertzian waves without the use of wires or other continuous electrical conductors between the transmitting and the receiving apparatus. Wireless telegraphy apparatus means any apparatus appliance instrument or material used or capable of use of wireless communication and includes any article determined by rule made under Section 10 to be wireless telegraph apparatus but does not include any such apparatus appliance instrument or material commonly used for other electrical purposes unless it has been specially designed or adapted for wireless communication or forms part of some apparatus appliance instrument or material specially so designed or adapted nor any article determined by rule made under Section 10 not to be wireless telegraphy apparatus. Section 3 of the Act prohibits possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without licence. However that provision is made subject to Section 4 which confers on the Central Gov- ernment power to exempt person from provisions of the said Act Section 10 of the Act also gives power to the Central Government to make rules inter alia for the purpose of exemption of persons or classes of persons under Section 4 from the provisions of the said Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Telegraph Act and Section 10 of the Wireless Teleg- raphy Act the Central Government has made the Radio Television and Video Cassette Recorder Sets (Exemption from Licensing Requirements) Rules 1985 Rule 2 provides that radio television and video cassette recorder sets shall not be wireless telegraphy apparatus for the pur- poses of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Rule 3 dispenses with the requirement of a license for working and for being in possession of radio television or video cassette recorder sets Rule 4 which came to be added in 1986 provides as under : 4 Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 2 and 3 any television set or video cassette recorder sot used or capable of being used for the reception of transient images of fixed and mov- ing objects by the use of special antenna of any type and associated front-end convertor direct from satellites operating in Broadcasting Satellite Service or Fixed Satellite Service shall be deemed to be wireless telegraphy apparatus for the purposes of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 (17 of 1933) and no person shall establish maintain or work or possess or deal in such sets without a licence from the Central Government under Section 4 of the Indian Tele- graph Act 1885 (13 of 1885) or the Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Possession) Rules 1965 or the Commercial Broadcast Receiver Licensing (Dealers) Rules 1965 as the case may be : explanation :- For the purposes of this rule Broadcasting Satellite Service and Fixed Sat- ellite Service shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Radio Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunication Convention Nairobi 1982 a TV set receives waves without the use of wire through its antenna. It can therefore be called a wireless telegraphy apparatus as defined by the Act. A disc antenna is a special type of antenna which receives and is capable of receiving waves without the use of wire. Therefore a disc antenna can certainly be called a wireless telegraphy apparatus and this position was not even disputed by the learned Advocates appearing for the owners of Video Cable Network. It was however submitted by Mr. Vakharia that since the petitioners also have now discontinued the use of disc antennas for receiving broadcast by Doordarshan that cable network cannot be re- garded as wireless telegraphy apparatus They now use common VCR for the purpose of show- ing pre-recorded programmes only by playing video cassettes therein. The transmission of the programmes in such cases is through cable and therefore it cannot be regarded as wireless communication. In our opinion there is no merit in this contention. The transmission of the programmes in such cases is through cable and therefore it cannot be regarded as wireless communication. In our opinion there is no merit in this contention. Merely because the cable network owners have stopped using disc antenna it cannot be said that the same has ceased to be capable of being used in wireless communication. So long as network remains capable of receiving wireless communication it will have to be regarded as wireless telegraphy apparatus. Moreover a VCR set so long as it remains connected with TV sets which as pointed out earlier are wireless telegraphy apparatus it will have to be held that the whole cable network consisting of TV sets and VCR is a wireless telegraphy apparatus. A Video Cable Network will not cease to be a wireless telegraphy apparatus merely because the VCR set is not connected with a special antenna or a disc antenna. If it remains connected with TV sets which are wireless teleg- raphy apparatus or when it is fitted with special gadgets which make it capable of receiving waves without the use of wire it wil have to be regarded as wireless telegrasphy apparatus Even though VCR set is mainly used for the purpose of showing pre-recorded programmes. However in view of Rule 2 radio television and video cassette recorded sets are not to be regarded as wireless telegraphy apparatus for the purpose of Wireless Telegraphy Act if they do not fall within the mischief of Rule 4. Rules 2 and 3 grant exemption from the rquirement of a licence for working and being in possession of radio television or video cassette recorded sets. Therefore it will have to be hold that as they are not to be regarded as wireless telegraphy apparatus no licence would be necessary for establishing and maintaining the same. Rules 2 and 3 grant exemption from the rquirement of a licence for working and being in possession of radio television or video cassette recorded sets. Therefore it will have to be hold that as they are not to be regarded as wireless telegraphy apparatus no licence would be necessary for establishing and maintaining the same. Only when the TV set or Video Cassette Recorder Set is used or is capable of being used for reception of transient images of fixed and moving objects by the use of special antenna of any type and associated front-end convertor di- rect from Satellites operating in Broadcasting Satellite Service or fixed satellite service it will have to be regarded as wireless telegraphy apparatus and as per the requirement of the Act and Rule 4 no person can establish maintain or work or possess or deal in such set without a licence from the Central Government. Whether the Discantennas used by the Video Cable Network owners is capable of such reception directly from the Satellite would be a question of fail in each case. If it is so capable then such a Video Cable Network using such an antenna will have to be regarded as wireless telegraphy apparatus requiring a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. If the Disc Antenna or the special antenna is not so capable then no licence would be required for establishing maintaining working or possessing the same. ( 8 ) RELYING upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ease of Restaurant Lee and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1983 MP 146 it was urged by the learned Advocate Mr. Shah and the learned Government Pleader Mr. Panchal that VCR fixed with tuners would not only fall within the definition of telegraph but would also be covered by the definition of wireless telegraphy apparatus. The Madhya Pradesh High Court after referring to the letter dated 31-10-1981 issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs held that a VCR is not an apparatus for transmission of broadcasts. It can be used when filled with RF tuner sections and/or monitors for reception of broadcast programmes and therefore such VCRs need broadcast receiver licence. This decision does support their contention to some extent. It can be used when filled with RF tuner sections and/or monitors for reception of broadcast programmes and therefore such VCRs need broadcast receiver licence. This decision does support their contention to some extent. ( 9 ) NEXT contention raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the Video Cable Net- work owners is that even though exhibiting movies by them by playing pre-recorded cassettes in VCR sets amounts to exhibition of cinematograph yet they are not required to take out a licence under the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act because the Act contemplates public exhibi- tion or exhibition in a public place or at a place where members of the public come as a matter of right and it cannot be said that they are doing so. On the other hand it was urged by the other side that in view of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Cinematograph Act 1952 such a licence would be necessary as it prohibits giving of an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under Part III of the Act. In this connection what is required to be noted is that in this State the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1953 also applies and Section 11 thereof repeals those provisions of the Cinematograph Act which relate to the regulation of exhibition by means of cinematograph including licensing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited. Therefore Section 10 of the Cinematograph Act has no application in the State of Gujarat. When this position was pointed out to the learned Counsel appearing for the Central Governement it was submitted by him that even under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act showing programmes through Video Cable Network would amount to exhibition by means of a cinematograph and therefore licence would be required under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 provides that no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under this Act or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Section 5 deals with restrictions on pow- ers of licensing authority. Section 6 confers power on State Government or licensing authority to suspend exhibition of films by passing order in that behalf if exhibition of the film is likely to cause breach of public order. Section 9 confers power on the State Government to make rules. Section 5 deals with restrictions on pow- ers of licensing authority. Section 6 confers power on State Government or licensing authority to suspend exhibition of films by passing order in that behalf if exhibition of the film is likely to cause breach of public order. Section 9 confers power on the State Government to make rules. Under Section 9 (2) (b) the State Government can make rules and provide for the regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing the public safety and under clause (d) it can make rules regulating or prohibiting the sale of any ticket or pass for admission by whatever name called to a place licensed under the Act. The Act contemplates a licence for a place because what is prohibited by Section 3 is giving of an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act. Though the word place has been defined to include a house building tent and any description of transport whether by sea land or air other provisions of the Act like Sections 5 5 5 6 9 and 9 clearly go to show that licence is required for a place whore public exhibition is given by means of a cinematograph. Section 5 (1) (b) requires the licensing authority to take into consideration while granting a licence whether adequate precautions have been taken in the place in respect of which the licence is to be given to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibition therein. Sub-section (3) of that section provides for giving directions to licencees for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films so that scientific films films intended for educational purposes films dealing with news and current events documentary films or in- digenous films secure an adequate opportunity of being exhibited. Section 6 (1) confers power on the State Government and the licensing authority to suspend exhibition of films if that is likely to cause breach of public order. Section 9 (2) (b) which confers power on the State Gov- ernment to make provision for regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing the public safety also indicates that the place which is contemplated is a place where the public go for witnessing cinematograph exhibition. Section 9 (2) (b) which confers power on the State Gov- ernment to make provision for regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing the public safety also indicates that the place which is contemplated is a place where the public go for witnessing cinematograph exhibition. ( 10 ) ON conjoint reading of all these provisions it becomes quite clear that the expression exhibit as used in Section 3 means public exhibition. Same view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Restaurant Lees case (supra) by the Delhi Court in Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1984 Del 379 and by the Bombay High Court in M/s Video Master v. Union of India and Ors AIR 1986 Bom 428 . In cases where the Video Network is owned by the member viewers exhibition by means of a cinematograph would amount to a private exhi- bition and therefore would not be covered by Section 3 of the Act. Moreover the exhibition cannot be said to be in a place contemplated by the Act because a place which is contemplated by the Act is a place where members of the public are admitted for the purpose of witnessing the exhi- bition. Even in case where the Video Network is owned by a third party the said exhibitor even though can be said to be giving public exhibition cannot be said to be giving an exhibition at a place contemplated by the Act and would not be required to take out any licence under the Cinema- tograph Act. Licence under Section 3 would be necessary only when the owner of the Video Cable Network gives a public exhibition meaning thereby that it is a display to which public is admitted for witnessing the exhibition. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the Central Government and the learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand have relied upon the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Restaurant Lees case (supra) and of the Bombay High Court in Dineshkumar Hanumanprasad Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Bom 34 . In both those cases exhibition of movies by playing pre-recorded cassettes in VCR was in restaurant and for that reason it was held that licence for doing so was necessary under the respective State Acts. In both those cases exhibition of movies by playing pre-recorded cassettes in VCR was in restaurant and for that reason it was held that licence for doing so was necessary under the respective State Acts. Therefore those decisions can be of no help in this case as the petitioners operating VCR Cable network are not giving exhibition of cinematograph in a place contemplated by the Act. Even if it is assumed that showing of a film or a movie by playing prerecorded cassette in a VCR amounts to a cinema- tograph exhibition it cannot be said that it is public exhibition of cinematograph or that the exhibition of cinematograph is in a place contemplated by the Act. ( 12 ) IT was lastly contended that by exhibiting films and programmes through their Video Cable Network the petitioners cannot be said to be admitting persons on payment and therefore the provisions of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act cannot apply to them In support of their conten- tion the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following observations made by this Court in H. T. Gurshaney v. The State of Gujarat 1983 G. L. H. 555 :. . . . IF we read the definitions in Section 2 (a) and 2 (e) together it becomes clear that `admis- sion to an entertainment means admission to any place in which any exhibition performance amusement game or sport is held. It clearly contemplates entry to a place where some game is played `payment for admission means payment to be made for admission to a place of entertain- ment that is a place where some exhibition performance amusement game or sport is held or any payment made in connection with an entertainment which a person is required to make as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the entertainment. . . ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in M/s Geeta Enterprises and Ors v. State of U. P. and Ors AIR 1983 SC 1098 had an occasion to construe the word entertainment as used in a similar provision contained in the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act 1937 In that case the word entertain- ment was defined thus : Entertainment includes any exhibition performance amusement game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment. After considering the various diction- ary meanings the Supreme court observed that a perusal of the various shades aspects forms and implications of the word `entertainment as defined in the books referred to by it clearly leads to an irresistible inference that the word `entertainment has been used in a very wide sense so as to include within its ambit entertainment of any kind including one which may be purely educa- tive. It further observed that sub-section (3) itself by using the word `entertainment as any exhibi- tion performance amusement game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment has extended the scope of entertainment to expressly include any kind of amusement game or sport. Therefore it cannot be doubled that the relay of broadcast or showing of films or other pro- grammes by playing pre-recorded video cassettes would amount to providing entertainment by Video Cable Network owners. However the question which arises is whether Video Cable Network owner would be under an obligation to pay enntertainment tax even when he does not collect any person at a place whore entertainment is provided. Though the Supreme Court has over-ruled the decision of this Court in H. T. Gurshaneys case (supra) it does not appear that the Supreme Court has disapproved the abovequoted observations made by this Court in that case. In cases where the viewer members themselves are the owners of Video Cable Networks it cannot be said that there is an admission to an entertainment on payment. What the Act contem- plates is giving of an entertainment by one to another. Therefore when certain persons gather together and provide entertainment itself it cannot be said that admission to an entertainment is on payment and therefore such persons would not be under any obligation to pay any tax under the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act. Even where the Video Cable Network owner is a third party and when such third party provides entertainment to the subscriber members it is not possible to say that he admits members of the public to any place where entertainment is provided. There is no entry to a place where some entertainment is provided and therefore following the decision of this Court in H. T. Gurshaneys case it will have to be hold that even they would not be covered by Section 3 of the Act. There is no entry to a place where some entertainment is provided and therefore following the decision of this Court in H. T. Gurshaneys case it will have to be hold that even they would not be covered by Section 3 of the Act. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the State and the cinema owners however relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd v. M/s Telelink and Ors AIR 1989 Bom 331 and submitted that when a film is shown by means of a cable TV Network inside private homes of various subscribers even though it is watched by the members of the subscribers household or his guests such a viewing has to be considered an exhibition of film to the public. In that case the Bombay High Court has observed that whether a communication is to the public or whether it is a private communication depends essentially on the persons receiving the communication. If they can be characterised as the public or a portion of the public the communication is to the public. Applying this test of the character of the audience watching the video films the Bombay High Court held as follows: the viewers of a Cable T. V. Network or those who receive such broadcast through a disk antenna to which their televisions sets are connected are either residents of apartments in a building which has such a network or they may be residents of a locality which is covered by this facility. A number of housesboth private homes and public places -- may avail of this fa- cility. It is true that the network operates through the connection of a cable to all these various apartments or houses. But this cannot in any way affect the character of the audience. The viewers are not members of one family or their guests. They do not have even the homogeneity of a club membership. And even club members have been held to be members of the public. The viewers are residents in different apartments or houses who are in no way connected with each other except by Cable ? It may be that in some of the homes members of the household will watch the film together. And even club members have been held to be members of the public. The viewers are residents in different apartments or houses who are in no way connected with each other except by Cable ? It may be that in some of the homes members of the household will watch the film together. But this does not mean that the entire audience taken together are members of a com- mon household or are family members. They can only be viewed as a portion of public. What is required to be noted is that the Bombay High Court was dealing with the Copyright Act and not with an Act providing for levy of lax on entertainment. The question which had arisen for consideration was whether by showing video films over Cable T. V. network to various sub- scribers the Video Cable Network owners wore broadcasting video films to the public and thereby infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in that case. The above-quoted observations have been made while interpreting the definition of the word broadcast as used in Section 2 (dd) of the Copyright Act which defines broadcast to mean communication to the public. Therefore in our view the aforesaid observations of the Bombay High Court cannot be of much use while consid- ering the applicability of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act. As pointed out above what is contemplated by the Entertainments Tax Act is admission on payment to any place where some exhibition performance amusement game or sport is held. Therefore the test to be applied while considereing the applicability of the entertainments tax is quite different from the test which the Bombay High Court was required to apply. We therefore hold that the petititoners are not covered by the provisions of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act and therefore they are under no obligation to pay entertainment tax even when they provide entertainment in the aforesaid manner through their Cable Network. ( 15 ) IT was brought to our notice by the learned Advocates appearing for some of the petitioners that in two or three petitions the Video Cable Network does not have the Disc antenna attached to it. In our opinion that does not make any difference in the conclusions which we have reached. ( 15 ) IT was brought to our notice by the learned Advocates appearing for some of the petitioners that in two or three petitions the Video Cable Network does not have the Disc antenna attached to it. In our opinion that does not make any difference in the conclusions which we have reached. As pointed out by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Restaurant Lees case (supra) a VCR is designed to record sound and pictures in both black and white and colour on magnetic tape and then to replay them when required. VCRs contain a tuner to enable the machine to record signals received from the antenna. The material recorded can then be played back on an ordinary domestic TV set. One can record one show using the VCRs tuner while watching another station using the TVs tuner. VCRs have a digital clock and associated with it a timer so that a show can be recorded when one is in bed or away from the house. VCRs also play back tapes recorded on other machines and non-recorded cassettes of movies. When a VCR is used for recording TV broadcast programme with the help of its tuner on a Video tape its use makes it come within the definition of `telegraph in Section 3 (1) of the Telegraph Act and the definition of `wireless telegraphy apparatus as contained in Section 2 (b) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Whether a VCR set has or has not a tuner and monitors and whether it is capable of receiving broadcast or not would be a question of fact in each case. ( 16 ) IN the result petitions filed by the Video Cable Network owners are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to that extent in those petitions with no order as to costs. So far as Special Civil Applications Nos. 1403 and 5719/88 are concerned rule is discharged in those petitions subject to the observations made in this judgment. No order as to costs. ( 17 ) SOME of the petitioners had applied for licence but their applications were rejected. Some petitioners applications for licence are still pending with the authorities. Some petition- ers have not applied for licence at all either under the Indian Telegraph Act or under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act. No order as to costs. ( 17 ) SOME of the petitioners had applied for licence but their applications were rejected. Some petitioners applications for licence are still pending with the authorities. Some petition- ers have not applied for licence at all either under the Indian Telegraph Act or under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act. In our opinion ends of justice will be served if the petitioners who have not so far applied are directed to make applications for licence under the Indian Tele- graph Act or the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act as may be necessary within four weeks from to- day. The petitioners whose applications are rejected are also directed to apply within four weeks for necessary licences. Those petitioners who have not made any application so far are also directed to make applications within four weeks from to-day. The authorities under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act are directed to dispose of the applications within four weeks from the date of receipt of the applications. Till then the authori- ties are directed not to prosecute the petitioners for maintaining and working their Video Cable Networks on the ground that they are violating the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act. .