M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ENDORSEMENT GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, shimoga DISTRICT, SHIMOGA AT ANNEXURE-A, DATED 23-9-1991 BY WHICH HIS PRAYER FOR licence TO RUN VIDEO PARLOUR CAME TO BE REJECTED. ( 2 ) THE MATTER ARISES IN THIS WAY. THE PETITIONER HAD APPLIED ON 16-9-1991 FORGRANT OF LICENCE TO EXHIBIT FILMS ON TELEVISION SCREEN THROUGH VIDEO CASSETTE recorder AS REQUIRED BY RULE 4 OF THE KARNATAKA EXHIBITION OF FILMS ON TELEVISION screen THROUGH VIDEO CASSETTE RECORDER (REGULATION) RULES, 1984 (HEREINAFTER referred AS 'the RULE' ). HIS APPLICATION CAME TO BE REJECTED BY ISSUING ENDORSEMENT AS per ANNEXURE-A, DATED 26-3-1991 ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THERE IS A DIRECTION GIVEN by THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO ISSUE ANY LICENCE TO VIDEO PARLOURS. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ENDORSEMENT, THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS COURTIN THIS PETITION WITH A PRAYER AS FOUND IN PARA LL (IV) IN THE WRIT PETITION. THE PRAYER is TO ISSUE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER's application FOR GRANT OF LICENCE TO EXHIBIT CINEMATOGRAPH SHOWS IN THE VIDEO PARLOUR and GRANT THE SAME FORTHWITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ( 4 ) THIS COURT IN SIMILAR W. P. NOS. 7871 AND 7872/1992 DISPOSED ON 16-3-1992, GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT. WHEN A CITIZEN WHO IS COMPETENT TO SEEK A LICENCE, APPROACHES THE COMPETENT authority WITH AN APPLICATION SEEKING FOR PERMISSION TO RUN OR SCREEN FILMS ON THE television THROUGH VIDEO CASSETTE RECORDER, SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED ind DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. BARRING THIS, THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION under THE RULES TO ENABLE THE POLICE OFFICER TO INTERFERE WITH THE day-TO-DAY BUSINESS of A CITIZEN WHO IS A LICENSEE. HOWEVER, IT WAS MADE CLEAR IN THOSE CASES THAT IN THE event OF RECEIPT OF ANY COMPLAINT BY THE POLICE OFFICER DISCLOSING BREACH OF ANY RIGHT arising UNDER THE COPY RIGHT ACT OR SCREENING ANY CASSETTE RECORDER WHICH IS NOT censored OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED, CAUSING NUISANCE TO THE PUBLIC, IT IS OPEN TO THE police OFFICER CONCERNED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ( 5 ) THIS PETITION BEING SIMILAR, DESERVED TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ALLOWED. THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-A IS QUASHED. ( 5 ) THIS PETITION BEING SIMILAR, DESERVED TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ALLOWED. THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-A IS QUASHED. THERE SHALL BE A DIRECTION TO tbc SECOND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND PASS APPROPRIATE order IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SHALL DISPOSE OF THE application WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS order. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. SRI VENKATACHALAIAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER IS PERMITTED TO FILE HIS MEMO OF APPEARANCE for RESPONDENTS IN FOUR WEEKS. --- *** --- .