JUDGMENT 1. - The above writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since the dispute in all these petitions is of common nature. 2. In Writ Petition No. 5718/97, the application of M/s Laxmi 'Talkies filed finder Order 1,0 Rule I C.P.C. was allowed out 10.12.1991. In another petition of the same petitioner bearing Writ Petition No. 5614/90, M/s Laxmi Talkies was allowed to intervene at the time of hearing of arguments. Similarly in writ petition No. 209'8/90 the application filed on behalf of Satagath Centre was -allowed. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. respondents and the interveners were heard, 3. In Writ Petition No. 5718/91, the petitioner has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or -direction, the respondents be directed not to interfere in any manner in the exhibition of films in petitioner's Video Centre named Navin Video Centre, Chirawa nor they shall demand any certification mf the Censor Board or re-certification of T.' V. films cassettes and that the respondents be restrained from seizing the V.C.R., T.V., Video machine, censored films and other materials used in the exhibition of films on the video machine installed in petitioner's video centre and by a writ of prohibition, the respondents be prohibited from causing any obstacle or preventing the customers from entering into petitioner's video centre and that they shall not interfere in the exhibition of films on video machine installed in petitioner's video centre, 4. In another writ petition No. 5614/90 of the same petitioner, it has been prayed that the V.C.R., T.V. and cassets operated in the petitioner's video centre shall not be seized or confiscated by the officers and servants of the respondents and that they shall not demand certification of the Censor Board and re-certification under the Copyright Act, 1957 without inquiring into the matter and without making inquiry from the real owner and the person who purchased the copyrights video cassets shaft not be seized & they shall not cause any obstruction in the petitioner's customers entering into the premises of the petitioner's video centre. It has further been prayed that respondents be directed not to enter into or interfere in the business of the petitioner by illegally stopping his customers from entering into the premises of the petitioner & they shall not seize the V.C.R., T.V., cassets & other material belonging to the petitioner in his video centre in terms of the letter issued on 10.2.1986 by the Home Commissioner and extensively quoted in Oshoomer Restaurant's case. 5. In Writ Petition No. 2093/90, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents may not seize petitioner's V.C.R. and T.V. and other articles used in his video centre in contravention of the statutory provisions of the law and that a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents that without making enquiry in accordance with law they shall not seize the video cassetes and other articles of the petitioner's video centre and that they shall not create any obstruction in entry of the customers in petitioner's video centre and in running of this video centre themselves or through their servants. It has also been prayed that the respondents he directed not to demand re-certification of the Censor Board Certificate and re-certification under the Copyright Act, 1957 as amended from time to time. 6. Writ Petition No. 4718 /90 has been filed by Shri Kishan Kumar, who is running a Video Centre in the name and style of Navin Video Centre at Chirawa. It is alleged that he is using cassets, which are duly certified under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and is paying due taxes under the Municipal Laws. The grievance: of the petitioner is that for the purpose of running Video Centre, they are not required to have any licence, still the respondents are harassing and obstructing in the running of Video Centre on the ground that licence has not been obtained for running the video centre. It is alleged that a Constable is kept out side the petitioner's Video centre. According to the petitioner, there is no provision under the copyright Act as well as Cinematograph Regulation Act or the Rajasthan Cinematograph Act, under which the licence could be demanded for running Video centre. It is alleged that a Constable is kept out side the petitioner's Video centre. According to the petitioner, there is no provision under the copyright Act as well as Cinematograph Regulation Act or the Rajasthan Cinematograph Act, under which the licence could be demanded for running Video centre. According to the petitioner, the films are certified for exhibition purposes and in accordance with the amended Proviso to Rule 30 read with Section 5A and 5B, the producer has to obtain a certificate from the Censor as required under Rule 21 and the films, which are in confirmity and used in the T.V. films does not require re certification as the celluloid films have already been produced and certified by the Censor Board and, therefore, the T.V. Films are not required to b:: sent for re certification to the Censor Board again. It is alleged that seizure of the T.V, and other items is without authority of law. 7. It has also been brought to my notice that the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulations of Exhibition) Act, 1990 (Act No. 1 I of 1991) has been passed by the Rajasthan State Legislature and the assent of the President has also been received on 7-5-1991 but the said Act has not been enforced as yet. 8. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned Advocates for interveners are that the exhibition of the films by Video Centres require licence and the action of the respondents in seizing the films and other items is in accordance with law. 9. Various points, which have been raised have been considered by me and are discussed under different headsI. Liability of payment of entertainment tax. 10. In accordance with the Rajasthan Advertisement and Entertainment Tax Act, 1957, the word "entertainment" has been defined in Clause 3(5) of the said Act, to include any exhibition (show) performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment. Section 4 is the charging section, which creates liability for payment of tax. On the basis of the definition given of the "entertainment" I am of the view that since liability is fixed on admission as a spectator or as one of an audience and admission for the purpose of amusement by taking part in entertainment and the petitioners are charging the payment for admission they are covered by the charging section. On the basis of the definition given of the "entertainment" I am of the view that since liability is fixed on admission as a spectator or as one of an audience and admission for the purpose of amusement by taking part in entertainment and the petitioners are charging the payment for admission they are covered by the charging section. The liability of tax under the Act has to be discharged in accordance with law and this view is also supported by the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court given in the case of M/s Geeta Enterprises v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 1098 , wherein it has been held that the Video show is liable to tax. 11. The respondents have averred that the petitioners are not paying entertainment tax. None of the actions of the respondents could be supported by the provisions of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Act, 1957 regarding seizure of the Televisions and V. C. Rs. etc., and if the petitioners are not paying tax under this Act, then the Assessing authority has ample power to enforce the provisions of the Act. 12. The grievance of the petitioners have no connection with regard to the infringment with any of the provisions of 1957 Act or the rules made thereunder and while deciding that the exhibition of the film by a video centre is entertainment and they are liable for payment of tax under the said Act, the action for seizing of any of the items is not contemplated by the said Act.II. Whether re-certification is required under the Copyright Act, 1957 13. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Cinematograph film has been defined as under : 2(f) "Cinematograph film includes the sound tract, if any, add "cinematograph" shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography; Explanation : For the purpose of this clause "Video Films" shall also be deemed to he work produced by a process analogous to cinematography". Section 52-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 is as under:- "52-A Particulars to be included in records and video films--(1) No person shall publish a record in respect of any work unless the particulars are displayed on the record and on any container thereof namely : (a) The name and address of a person who has made the record (b) the name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work and (c) the year of its first publication. (2) No person shall publish a video film in respect of any work unless the following particulars are displayed in the video film when exhibited and on the video cassette or other container thereof namely : (a) Such work is a cinematograph film required to be certified under the provisions of the cinematograph Act, 1952 a copy of the certificate granted by the Board of Film Certification under Section 5A of that Act in respect of such work, (b) the name and address of the person who has made the video film and a declaration by him that he has obtained the necessary licence or consent from the owner of the copyright in such work for making such video film, and (c) the name, address of the owner of the copyright in such work." 14. Section 64 gives power to the police to seize the copies of the work and all plates used for the purpose of making infringement of copies of the work. According to this Act, no person shall publish a video film unless the conditions mentioned in Section 52-A are complied with and Section 63 provides for offence of an infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. Section 68A provides that any person who publishes a record or a video film in contravention of the provisions of Section 52A shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for fine. This Act provides for seizure of copies of work and, therefore, if there is any contravention, the respondents are justified in seizing the copies. This Act provides for seizure of copies of work and, therefore, if there is any contravention, the respondents are justified in seizing the copies. This act does not provide for any seizure of V.C.R. or T. V. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 which has amended the Copyright Act, 1957 has provided in Section 2(f) the explanation as under : "For the purpose of this clause Video film shall also be deemed to be work produced by a process analogous to cinematography." The provisions of Section 2(h) provides the definition of duplicating equipment. 15. The provisions of Section 64 have also been amended and a new Section 68-A has been inserted, wherein any person who publishes a record or Video film in contravention of the provisions of Section 52-A shall be punishable for imprisonment, which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine. The provisions of Section 52-A provides that no person shall publish a record in respect of any work unless the particulars are displayed on the record and on any container thereof, namely .................... 16. The perusal of the section shows that the particulars required in the section have to be shown on the top of the film as well as video cassette in which it is contained. The word "video cassette" or other container covers even a container which is over the video cassette and, therefore, the name and address of the owner of the copyright and a declaration that he has obtained necessary licence or consent from the owner of the copyright in such work for making such film and a copy of the certificate granted by the Board of film certification under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 in respect of such work has to be displayed. If there is a contravention of the provisions of Section 5?-A of the Act, then the police can seize the infringing copies under Section 64 of Act and take action in accordance with the said Section. If there is a contravention of the provisions of Section 5?-A of the Act, then the police can seize the infringing copies under Section 64 of Act and take action in accordance with the said Section. This section contemplates only seizure of the copies which are infringing copies of the work and does not authorise to seize the T.V. and V.C.R and other apparatus and therefore, on the proper interpretation of this Act, it has to be held that only if there is a contravention of the provisions of Section 52-A, then the action to the extent mentioned in Section 64 of the Act can be taken.III. Whether licence is necessary under the Rajasthan Cinemas Regulations Act, 1952: 17. This Act is meant for regulating exhibition by means of cinematograph. The word 'Cinematograph' includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. Under Section 3 of this Act, no person shall give an exhibition by means of cinematograph elsewhere than in place licenced under this Act or otherwise than in compliance with any condition and restrictions imposed by such licence. The District Magistrate is the licencing authority under Section 4 of the Act. The State Government is authorised to specify by notification licencing authority for whole or part of the State of Rajasthan. The State Government and the District Magistrates have been given power to suspend the exhibition of the film which may cause breach of peace under Section 7 of the Act and during the period of suspension, the film is deemed to be uncertified film. Under Section 9 of the Act, if the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence under section of the Cinematograph Act, 1957 or under Section 8 of this Act or for commission of any offence under the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Act, 1957, the licence may be revoked by the licencing authority. Section 8 provides for penalties for contravention of Act and the Rules made thereunder. The said Act requires certification of the films and is meant for certification of cinematograph film for exhibition and for regulating films by means of cinematograph. Under Section 7-A power of seizure has been given if the film is exhibited in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. The said Act requires certification of the films and is meant for certification of cinematograph film for exhibition and for regulating films by means of cinematograph. Under Section 7-A power of seizure has been given if the film is exhibited in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. This Act was amended by the Cinematograph Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 56 of 1984), wherein the period of punishment has been extended to 3 years and fine which may extent to one lac or both in case of continuing offence with a further fine, which may extent to Rs. 25,000/-for each day during which offence continues. It has also been provided under Section 7 that the person who exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place a video film in contravention of the provisions of sub clause (i) of Clause (e) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than 3 months, but which may extend to 3 years and with fine, which shall not be less than Rs. 20,000/-but which may extend to Rs. oie lac and in case of continuing offence, with a further fine which may extend to Rs. 20,000/-for each day during which the offence continues. The court has b-en given power for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment to impose sentence of imprisonment of a term of less than 3 months or a fine of less than Rs. 20,000/-. Under Section 7 (1) (a) (i), if any person exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place any film other than the film which has been certified by the Board as suitable for exhibition or for public exhibition respected to adults or to members of any profession or any class of persons and which, when exhibited displays the prescribed mark of the Board and has not been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto, is liable for punishment referred to above. 18. The Government of India has issued a circular on 3.1.1985 to the Secretaries of the State Governments and the Union territories regarding video piracy and has informed that the punishment for offence relating to exhibition of uncertified films has been enhanced by the amendment in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which came into force on 27.3.1984. 19. 18. The Government of India has issued a circular on 3.1.1985 to the Secretaries of the State Governments and the Union territories regarding video piracy and has informed that the punishment for offence relating to exhibition of uncertified films has been enhanced by the amendment in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which came into force on 27.3.1984. 19. The Statement of objects and reasons for amendment in the Cinematograph Act are as under : "The penalty provided in Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, for contravention of the provisions of Part II of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is as follows : "Imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both in the case of a continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, for each day during which the offence continues." 2. There are various kinds of contraventions of Part II of the Act. These include exhibition of uncensored films or certified films with portions directed to be deleted by the Central Board of Film certification or portions not shown to the Board (which are called interpolations in films in common parlance) showing adult films to non-adults, failure to comply with any order of the Central Government or the Board in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or the rules made thereunder, etc. 3. Because of the video boom in the country, there are reports that uncertified video films are being exhibited on a large scale. A large number of video parlours have sprung up all over the country and they exhibit such films recorded on video tapes by charging admission fee from the clients. Among other things, this has also hit the Indian film industry very adversely. It is felt that there should be more stringent punishment provided in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to curb this practice of exhibiting uncertified Indian/foreign films by video parlours etc. 4. It is, therefore. Among other things, this has also hit the Indian film industry very adversely. It is felt that there should be more stringent punishment provided in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to curb this practice of exhibiting uncertified Indian/foreign films by video parlours etc. 4. It is, therefore. proposed (vide clause 3) to amend Section 7 of the Act as follows : (i) to enhance punishment for an offence under section 7 of the Act to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or both; (ii) In the case of continuing offence, to enhance the punishment to a further fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees for each day during which the offence continues; (iii) in the case of exhibition of video films in contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub section (1) of section 7 of the Act, to provide for the minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and a fine of not less than twenty thousand rupees. The court shall, however, have power to impose a punishment less than the minimum for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. 5. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards are cognizable offence. Since the quantum of imprisonment for the offence under Part II is proposed to be increased to three years, the offence under that part shall be cognizable offence even under the general law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 63 of the Act will. therefore, become redundant and is sought to be omitted by clause 2 of the bill." 20. The Government of Rajasthan has issued instructions to all the District Magistrates on 15.12.1984, which read as under: "To The District Magistrates Sub : Public exhibition of films through VCRs/VCPs. Sir, The matter of regulating public exhibition of films through VCRs; VCPs has been engaging attention of the State Govt. for some time past. In this connection, enquiries were being made as to whether VIDEO parlours, operating in many cities of Rajasthan, require to be licenced under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 or not. Sir, The matter of regulating public exhibition of films through VCRs; VCPs has been engaging attention of the State Govt. for some time past. In this connection, enquiries were being made as to whether VIDEO parlours, operating in many cities of Rajasthan, require to be licenced under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 or not. The Government of India also examined this issue in consultation with the Minister of law, and held that as the existing provisions in the Cine matograph Act, 1952 cover film on video tapes within the meaning of -film' read with `Cinematograph' provided in the Act, the public exhibition of films on video will have to be regulated in the same manner as that of film covered under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. As per this clarification, the public exhibition of Video films shall require censor certificate and the exhibitors will have to comply with the all requirements as stipulated in the respective laws of the State Governments. A' Clarification to this effect has already been circulated to you vide this Department -letter of even number dated 17.4.1984. According to the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act), a cinematograph film is required to be exhibited on cinematograph only after ;getting a certification from the Board of Film Certification, constitution under the said Act. Till now, only cinematograph exhibition of films was covered under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1963. The Central Government vide Notification dated 28.2.84 have now amended the said Rules bringing exhibition of Video films under the provision of these rules. Copy 'of the Cinematograph (Certification) (Amendment) Rules, 1984, which have come into force w.e.f. 1.3 84, has already been sent to you vide this Department letter of even number dated 17.4.1984, for implementing the provisions, of these rules strictly. The Cinematograph Act., 1952 (Central Act) further been amended by the Govt. of India by Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 1984 published in the Gazette of India on 28.8.84 enhancing the panel provisions, a copy .of the said an end rent Act is enclosed. The Central Government, vide Notification dated 14.9.S4 have now also amended the Copyright Act, 1957, bringing the Video films deemed to be work produced by a process analogous to cinematograph. A copy of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 published in the Gazette of India on 14.9.84 is also enclosed. The said amendment Act has come into force w..e.f. 8.10.84. The Central Government, vide Notification dated 14.9.S4 have now also amended the Copyright Act, 1957, bringing the Video films deemed to be work produced by a process analogous to cinematograph. A copy of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 published in the Gazette of India on 14.9.84 is also enclosed. The said amendment Act has come into force w..e.f. 8.10.84. It is hoped that with all these amendments coming into force, the illegal exhibition of films on Videos will be curbed to a great extent. You are, therefore, requested to strictly enforce provisions of these legal provisions. As regards the question of regulation to go-vein exhibition of films on T.V. Screen through VCRs, it is under active consideration of the Government. Sd/- S.C. Pagoria Deputy Secretary to Government .'21. In Restaurant Lee v. State AIR 1983 M.P. 146 it has been held that when V.C.R. is used for playing pre-recorded cassettes of movies on the T.W. Screen, it is certainly used as an apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures and comes within the definition of Cinematograph'. It was further held that exhibition of movies in their restaurants from prerecorded cassettes require a licence under the Cinemas (Regulations) Act. It could not be contended that even if the petitioners were contraventing the provisions of the Cinemas (Regulations) Act, the State Government authorities had no authority to order the petitioners to stop exhibiting movies from the V.C.R. as the authorities concerned were only pointing to the petitioners that they were contravening the provisions of the Act as their restaurants were not licenced.22. Delhi High Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 Delhi 379 have held that the video is an appliance which is capable of use of transmission of signs, signals, images and sounds and, therefore, would fall within the definition 'stelegraph'. Likewise, both the articles would be cinematograph whether jointly and severally within the meaning of S. 2 (c) of the Cinematograph Act. The definition is an inclusive definition. Both are jointly and severally apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. Therefore, the provisions of the Cinematograph Act are clearly attracted.23. Likewise, both the articles would be cinematograph whether jointly and severally within the meaning of S. 2 (c) of the Cinematograph Act. The definition is an inclusive definition. Both are jointly and severally apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. Therefore, the provisions of the Cinematograph Act are clearly attracted.23. In Dinesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Bombay 34 , it has been held by the Bombay High Court that when V.C.R. is used for playing prerecorded cassettes of movies on the TV screen, it is certainly used as an apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures and comes within the definition of ''cinematograph" as defined under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.24. In Mal Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan : SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3551/89 decided on 22-8-1991 , it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that he has no doubt that in this age when the technologies are growing fast and video cassettes having range of all types of subjects are flooding the market which not only contain entertaining material but the material which is a great educative value, based on historical themes classic fictions, classical music, Indian as well as western, Pop, Jazz & Morgart to instrumental and charges, cartoon films for children, nursery ryhms, ecology and environment, wild life to what her man's achievements and in number able other subjects including imparting education by U. G. C. and other bodies. There can be no restriction on any video parlours and they should be permitted to exhibit all sort of films except those prohibited by law and not covered by certificate under Cinematograph Act and is not in violation of Copy Right Act. Not only the youth has to be kept away from blue films and strict vigilance is essential but the induction of the piracy has also to be restricted. The State machinery, therefore, has only to regulate the exhibition of films in video parlours and not to restrict it. The regularisation has to be within four corners of law and restriction should only be placed when there is gross violation of Cinematograph Act or the Copyright Act or the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulations) Act or the rules made thereunder".25. The State machinery, therefore, has only to regulate the exhibition of films in video parlours and not to restrict it. The regularisation has to be within four corners of law and restriction should only be placed when there is gross violation of Cinematograph Act or the Copyright Act or the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulations) Act or the rules made thereunder".25. In Ghoomar Cafe v. State of Rajasthan, 1986(2) WLN 748 , which was relied upon in Mal Singh Shekhawat's case, this court has held that the term 'film' means any film exhibited in cinema or in 1'. V. and both have to be served properly. Proviso to Rule 30 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 was held not beyond the scope of Section 5-A and 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It has further been observed in the said judgment that T. V. films which are produced by the producers are required to undergo necessary certification in terms of Sections 5A and 5B read with rule 21 and such certification cannot be said to violate freedom of business of the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that the certification of the video films is violative of Articles 19(1) (a) and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The celluloid films which are converted into T. V. films for exhibition on T. V. does not require re certification. It has further been observed that the Copy Right Act and the Cinematograph Act 1952 have different areas of operation. Under the Cinematograph Act what is checked is that the films which are being exhibited should not harm the public order, decency and morality and other considerations, which are contained in Section 5-B. As against this, the Copyright Act has a different purpose and which saves the producers from piracy. Thus while interpreting the amended proviso to r. 30 the consideration of the Copyright Act cannot be invoked. The consideration of Copyright Act are absolutely different from the considerations contained hi the Cinematograph Act and the rules made thereunder.26. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in accordance with the judgment in Mal Singh Shekhawat's case (supra) the petitioner is not required to obtain any licence, is not the correct interpretation of the said judgment. The consideration of Copyright Act are absolutely different from the considerations contained hi the Cinematograph Act and the rules made thereunder.26. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in accordance with the judgment in Mal Singh Shekhawat's case (supra) the petitioner is not required to obtain any licence, is not the correct interpretation of the said judgment. The said judgment has not considered the aspect as to whether the licence is required under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 or not and cannot be said to be an authority on that point. The provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act are with regard to certification of the films Section 10 provides that cinematograph exhibitions have to be licenced. According to this section, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in place licensed under this Part or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Section 7-A gives power for seizure in respect of a film which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Rules have been framed under this Act, which are called Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. From a perusal of the various provisions referred to above, it would be evident that a licence has to be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the judgment in Mad Singh Shekhawat's case since have not considered the question of obtaining licence under this Act, cannot have any bearing on the point, IV. Whether re certification is required of the celluloid film ;27. In Music Centre Mandsore v. State of M. P., AIR 1989 M. P. 56 it has been held that Proviso to Rule 30(l) prescribing that the certificate must be posted on the cassettes is not out side the legislative competence of the Parliament. It has further been observed that the State Legislature would also be competent to make a law with regard to exhibition of Video film by virtue of the provisions of Entry 30 of List-II of Vllth Schedule to the Constitution relating to the subject natter of cinematograph, but that would not affect the power of the Parliament to make law as covered by Entry 60 of list-I. Moreover, making of taw by the State Legislature in respect of Cinemas in Entry 33 of List-II would always be subject to the provisions of Entry-60 of list-I.28. In Video Master Bombay v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Bombay 428 . it was held that celluloid copy of the certified film does not require re-examination or re-certification because it is a duplicate copy on Video tape and cannot be treated on different footing. It was further held that the video copy of the film it is revised version or other version of the original film then obviously it would be deemed to be a fresh film. This is the position even with the celluloid film or its copy.29. I am of the view that re certification of the celluloid film will not he required unless video copy of the claim is a revised version or the duplicate copy of the video tape is the shorter or the enlarged version.30. The various points which have been raised and have been discussed in details and have been decided on the basis of the provisions of the Act. The respondents are directed to act in accordance with the directions as given on different points in this order.31. The Writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the observations made hereinabove.32. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition disposed of in terms of observation made in judgment - Respondents directed to act in accordance with directions as given. *******