JUDGMENT 1. - In the above numbered writ petitions the question is as to whether the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, the Act and the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules) are attracted in so far as such ( of the petitioners who are exhibiting films by means of video ? 2. It will be proper to first give facts of each of the writ petitions and then to deal with the point involved. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 287/1990 Sita Ram Goyal v. State and others. 3. The petitioner got a Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) and also a big size exhibition equipment i.e. projection TV for the purposes of entertainment of the public and exhibits films through the VCR. He started a video parlour in the name and style of Shakti Video Bhamatipura, Dholpur. The said Video Parlour was started sometime in the month of November, 1989. According to the petitioner in reply to his letter he was informed by the Collector on September 27, 1989 that he is free to exhibit films on video provided he does not infringe copy right and further the films should be certified by the Censor Board. He was granted permission by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dholpur under his letter dated November 6, 1989 (Annr. 2). There are three cinema talkies in Dholpur, namely Jagal Talkies, Jagdish Talkies and Bharti Talkies. The people became jealous of the success of the petitioner and started making complaints to the District Magistrate, Dholpur. The Collector issued a notice which was replied, but without considering the same the District Magistrate under his letter dated January 10, 1990 (Annr. 5) ordered the petitioner to stop the exhibition of film video parlour. The petitioner has challenged the same and prayed that the respondents be restrained from issuing any such notice in future and they may further be restrained from disturbing the exhibition of films on video by the petitioner. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 271/1990 M/s. Bharti Talkies Dholpur v. State and others. 4. This writ petition is by the holder of a licence under the Act as well as under the Rules and the petitioner M/s Bharti Talkies is running a cinema at Dholpur. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 271/1990 M/s. Bharti Talkies Dholpur v. State and others. 4. This writ petition is by the holder of a licence under the Act as well as under the Rules and the petitioner M/s Bharti Talkies is running a cinema at Dholpur. In this writ petition M/s Shakti Video has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 of which Sita Ram Goyal is the proprietor and who has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 287/90, the facts of which have already been stated just above. The case of the petitioner in this case is that the respondent No. 4 is running video parlour not only by the video system but also by the aid of a projector and is exhibiting films on a screen of 12' x 16' and the said parlour has a capacity of 600 persons and feature films are being exhibited to the public and the normal system of issuing tickets and charging the entry fee for the same is being adopted by the respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner, no film can be exhibited for public viewing through video projection system as the certification of the cassette is strictly for 'home-viewing', but the respondent No. 4 cared the least for the provisions of law and continued to exhibit films to the public on video projection system with the aid of a projector including the latest films which are not even released so far for exhibition within the State of Rajasthan. The tickets are being sold on the window. In short, the case of the petitioner is that video cassettes are only meant for home viewing and not for public viewing. According to the petitioner, if the cassettes are shown in public on video with the help of a projector, it amounts to video piracy. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the exhibition of films by the respondent No. 4 on video in public is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the respondent No. 4 be restrained from exhibiting the films and other respondents be directed to see that the provisions of law are complied with. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3576/1989 Shyam Sunder v. State and others. 5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3576/1989 Shyam Sunder v. State and others. 5. The petitioner runs video service in the name and style of Shyam Video theater at Jhunjhunu and is having a VCR and uses the video cassettes of duly certified films by the Censor Board with statutory declaration under Section 52-A of to Copy right Act, 1957 as amended from time to time. According to the petitioner no Wince under the Act is necessary for exhibition of films on video, but his television and VCR were seized by the respondent No. 3, the SHO Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu on August 4, 1989. The said action was in contravention of the provisions of any statute. The other writ petition of the petitioner has also been filed but it is on different cause of action. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents be asked not to demand recertification of the Censor Board and under the Copy Right Act. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4834/1989 Deen Bandhu Talkies Khetri Nagar v. State and others. 6. This writ petition is by a licensee under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the licensee runs a cinema in the town of Khetri District - Jhunjhunu by the name of `Deen Bandhu Talkies' since May, 1977. As per the case of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 M/s Ganga Mandir Mini Cinema, applied for a licence under the Rules on November 7, 1988 and obtained a 'licence from the District Magistrate Jhunjhunu in the month of March, 1989. The said licence was exclusively for the video purpose but soon after obtaining the same the respondent No. 4 had started exhibiting films to the public after having made a mini talkies with a cinema hall like screen in the name and style of 'Ganga Mandir Mini Talkies' and the said mini talkies is quite close to the town of Khetri and the modus operandi of the business started by the respondent No. 4 is quiteakin to a cinema hall working so much so that he had been issuing tickets in the same manner as is done by a cinema hall exhibitor. According to the petitioner, no film can be exhibited through the video projection system. The provisions of law are being contravened. According to the petitioner, no film can be exhibited through the video projection system. The provisions of law are being contravened. A declaration is sought that the mini talkies/video parlour being run by the respondent No. 4 and the exhibition of films in it are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 1984 and the Copy Right Act and also the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. (for short, the 1983) Rules. S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 5484/1990 M/s. Tara Talkies and another v. State and others. 7. The petitioner runs a cinema theatre in the name and style of 'Tara Talkies' at Kherli after obtaining a licence under the Act and the Rules. The petitioners have raised a grievance against the respondents Nos. 6 to 9, who according to them are running illegal video parlours. A complaint is said to have been made by the petitioners to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Rajgarh who has issued some orders and thereafter though these respondents had stopped exhibiting films, but subsequently, they again started the same. A representation was made to the Collector, but to no effect. According to the petitioners the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 have no right to exhibit films with the help of projector on their video in the public place. The petitioners have sought a declaration that the exhibition of films is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and also against the 1983 Rules and Copy Right Act and the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 be restrained from exhibiting the films on video. 8. The above petitions are contested on behalf of the respondents in each of the writ petitions. It will therefore be seen that two sets of the writ petitions have been filed, one by those who are running video parlours and the other by those who are having cinema halls and are having licences under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the rights of the licensees under the Act and the Rules as well as those who are exhibiting films on video with the help of projectors are to be looked into. In other words, is to be seen whether or not there is any requirement for issuing a licence under the Act and the Rules in so far as those persons who are running video parlours in public are concerned. In other words, is to be seen whether or not there is any requirement for issuing a licence under the Act and the Rules in so far as those persons who are running video parlours in public are concerned. Such questions had already arisen and the courts had the occasion to examine such questions and a reference to the various decisions of this court shall be made at the proper place. But it will be proper to deal with the latest Act which has been brought on the statute book by the State Legislature. In this connection a reference may be made to the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulation of Exhibition) Act, 1990 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1991) (for short, the Act of 1991). The Act-of 1991 received the assent of the President on May 17, 1991. The preamble of that Act provides for the regulation of exhibition of video films and matters incidental or ancillary thereto in the State of Rajasthan. The Act of 1991 was to come into force on such date as the State Government may appoint in the official gazette by notification and the State Government vide Notification No. F. 10(34) FD/Gr. IV/90-I (SO-44) dated June 1, 1992 appointed June 1, 1992 as the date on which the Act of 1991 came into force. The said notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 1, 1992 (Part 4 Ga). There have been some amendments in the Act of 1991 by the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulation of Exhibition) (Amendment) Act, 1992 and under the aforesaid amendment clauses (e) and (h) of Section 2 of the Act of 1991 which define respectively 'exhibition of video film' and 'video cinema' have been substituted. There are other amendments also by the aforesaid amendment. As per clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act of 1991 as amended, `exhibition of video film' means exhibition of film on television screen through video cassette recorder and video cassette player and as per clause (h) `video cinema' means the entire place licensed for exhibiting by means of video on a screen of one hundred or more centimeters and admitting fifty or more but not more than one hundred and fifty persons in a permanent building and includes appurtenances, plants and apparatus located therein. The said amendment was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra-ordinary Part 4 (a) dated April 28, 1992. The said amendment was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra-ordinary Part 4 (a) dated April 28, 1992. 'Licensing Authority' has been defined in clause (f) of Section 2 and the said expression for video cinemas means the District Magistrate of the area concerned and for video parlours, the Commercial Taxes Officer of the area concerned. Clause (i) defines 'video film' which expression includes a work produced by a process analogous to that of cinematography. Clause (j) defines `video parlour' which means entire place licensed for exhibiting by means of video on a screen of less than 100 centimeters and admitting less than 50 persons in a permanent building and includes appurtenances, plants and apparatus located therein. Section 4 of the Act of 1991 requires grant of a licence by the licensing authority on payment of prescribed fee. Under Section 5 terms and conditions of licence have been enumerated and under its sub-section (5) a licence to exhibit video films shall be granted only for exhibition of those video films for which rights have been acquired from the genuine copyright holder. 'A contravention of the terms, conditions and restrictions of the licence granted or any of the provisions of the Act of 1991 and the Rules made thereunder has been made punishable under Section 10 of the Act of 1991. Section 11 of that Act has conferred powers of search and seizure not only on the licensing authority, but also on an officer specially authorised by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in this behalf or an Executive Magistrate or a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector of Police. The said officers can enter into and search the place suspected of being used for exhibition of a video film in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder or such orders or directions as are issued under Section 7. Power in also conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1991 on the licensing authority or an officer specially authorised by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes or the Executive Magistrate or a Police officer making the search to seize a television set, video cassette recorder, video cassette player, monitoring screen and video film or any other things being used in connection with the exhibition of a video film. Video films etc. are liable to be confiscated. Video films etc. are liable to be confiscated. It will be seen from various provisions of the Act of 1991 that the said Act is a self-contained one and regulates exhibition of video films in video parlours etc. and the films can only be exhibited therein after obtaining licences from the licensing authority and under the terms and conditions of the licence video films or VCRs etc. are liable to be seized in case on a search being taken it is revealed that there has been contravention of the provisions of Act of 1991 or the Rules made thereunder or to any direction issued by the State Government. 9. It can therefore be said that after coming into force of the Act of 1991 exhibition of video films as defined in Section 2(i) either in video cinema or video parlour can only be in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1991 and the Rules framed or to be framed thereunder. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1991, it is not now necessary to discuss the legal position of law, but this Court had the occasion to examine this question and in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 566 , a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a video parlour where the films are exhibited with the use of VCR. and TV on payment by the public can only be run after complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as well as the Copy Right Act. The learned Judge held that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules will be applicable. The learned Judge placing reliance on the aforesaid case of Dilip Singh (supra) in the case of Navin Chand Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1248/91 decided on May 15, 1992 while allowing the writ petition, held that the respondents in that case all exhibiting films on videos could only exhibit the films in accordance with the Act and the Rules and if they exhibit films in violation of the aforesaid Act and the Rules without obtaining licence then they can be proceeded/prosecuted as provided in the aforesaid Act/Regulation. A direction was issued to the authorities to take necessary action permissible under the law if the provisions of the aforesaid Acts/Regulations are violated by the respondents. Again another learned Judge of this Court in the case of Kishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 334 , took a similar view and it was held that the provisions of the Act and Cinematography Act as well as Copy Right Act are applicable. The learned-Judge held that a licence has to be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned Judge distinguished the earlier decision of this court in the case of Mal Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Peition No. 3551/1989, decided on August 22, 1991 . It can therefore be said that even before the provisions of the Act of 1991 came into force so far as exhibition of films on video is concerned, it was necessary that under the Act a licence must have been obtained and without it none could have exhibited the film in video cinema or video parlour. 10. Consequently,. I hereby allow the writ petitions, namely M/s. Bharti Talkies Dholpur v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 271/1990 , Deen Bandhu Talkies and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4834/89 and M/s. Tara Talkies and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5484/90 and hold that the respondents in those cases who are running video cinemas/video parlours for exhibiting films on videos can do so only in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulation of Exhibition) Act, 1990 (Act No. 11 of 1991) and not otherwise and if they contravene any of the provisions of that Act and the Rules made or to be made, the licensing authority or other competent authorities are to take action in accordance with law. The other writ petitions, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 287/90 Sita Ram Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and others and Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3576/89 are hereby dismissed. Costs made easy.SBC WP NOS. 287/90 and 3576/89 Dismissed;Others Allowed. *******