JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition filed under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300--A of the Constitution of India in the matter of Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1952 and Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959. The petitioner by this writ petition has sought to challenge the impugned order, dated 2nd March, 1983, passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority, Beawer, District Ajmer directing seizure of the T. V. cum V.D.O. set from the petitioner's restaurant. 2. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is doing the business of running a restaurant at Champa Nagar, Beawer in the name and style of V.D.O. Restaurant'. During the course of his business, the petitioner had installed a T.V. cum V.D.O. set at his business premises and that as required under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 the petitioner had obtained a licence for the possession of television set referred to above and the said licence was valid upto 31st December, 1993 and renewable from year to year. 3. That entry 60 of the Union list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to make laws in regard to sanctioning of cinematography films for exhibition. The Cinematograph Act 1952 (Act 37 of 1952) was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its powers conferred by entry 60 of the Union List referred to above. 4. That entry 33 of the State list in the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India empowers the State Legislature to make laws regarding Theatre and dramatical purposes; cinemas subject to the provisions of entry 60 of list 1; Sports, Entertainments and Amusements. In exercise of powers conferred by this entry, the State legislature has enacted Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Sections 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Act provide as under : "S.2-Interpretation-(l) In this Act, unless the subject or context otherwise requires, (a) "Cinematograph" includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures; (aa) "Local Law" means a law relating to the establishment and powers of a local authority in force in any part of the State. (b) 'Place' includes a house, building, tent and any description of transport, whether by land, water or air; (c) "Prescribed" means prescribed by this Act or by rules made thereunder. S.3-Cinematograph exhibitions to be licensed - Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall give an exhibition by means of Cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under this Act or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such license. S.6. Power of State Government to issue directions - The State Government shall have power, from time to time to issue directions to licensee generally or to any licensee in particular for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films so that scientific film; films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events, documentary films or indigenous films secure an adequate opportunity of being exhibited and, where any such directions have been issued, those directions shall be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions subject to which the licence under this Act has been granted. S. 7. Power to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases:- (1) The State Government in respect of the whole or any part of the State of Rajasthan and the District Magistrate in respect of the district within his jurisdiction may, if it or he is of opinion that any films which is being publicly exhibited is likely to cause breach of the peace, by order suspend the exhibition of such film and during such suspension, the film shall be deemed to be an uncertified film in such whole, part or district of the State of Rajasthan (2) Where an order under Sub-section (1) has been issued by a District Magistrate, a copy thereof together with a statement of reasons therefor, shall forthwith be forwarded to the State Government and the State Government may on a consideration of all the facts of the case confirm, modify, or cancel the order. (3) An order made under this section shall remain in force for a period of two months from the date thereof, but the State Government may, if it is of opinion that the order should continue in force, direct that the period of suspension shall be extended by such further period, as it thinks fit". 5. (3) An order made under this section shall remain in force for a period of two months from the date thereof, but the State Government may, if it is of opinion that the order should continue in force, direct that the period of suspension shall be extended by such further period, as it thinks fit". 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that language of Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that no person shall exhibit by means of cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act. Reading this provision with definition of 'cinematograph', 'place' and 'cinema' extracted hereinabove, it can be said without any hesitation that Section 3 of the Act imposes a restriction on exhibition by means of cinematograph in a cinema house (emphasis supplied) . The provisions of Rules of 1959 further support this legislative intent. From the object and purpose of statute, i.e., the Act and the Rules make it abundantly clear that the legislature never intended to cover and provide for V. D. Os. Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In this context it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the V. D. O. sets were not intended to be covered for purpose of entertainment tax and hence were not in contemplation of the framers of the Constitution or the State legislature at the time of enactment of the Act and the Rules. The very purpose and object of the word 'cinema' as used in entry 33 of list 2 (State List) in the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India was to provide for cinematograph exhibition in cinema halls or theatures only, hence the legislature had no intention to give wide meaning to the aforesaid entry with a view to cover V. D.Os which are used for entertainment either in residential premises or in commercial premises like restaurant etc. Moreover the V. D. Os. are of recent origin and hence could not be covered within the ambit of the Act and the Rules. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforestated position, the legislature while framing the Act and the Rules never intended to provide for the requirement of a licence for possession and use of V. D. Os. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforestated position, the legislature while framing the Act and the Rules never intended to provide for the requirement of a licence for possession and use of V. D. Os. Consequently the petitioner had not obtained licence for use of V. D. Os. set while installing the aforementioned T. V. cum V. D. O. sets at his business premises. 6. That on 25th February, 1983 respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order (Annex. 1) directing seizure of the T. V. cum V.D.O. set from the business premises of the petitioner and had further directed the said. T.V. cum V.D.O. set to be released on petitioner's furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-which the petitioner had furnished to the satisfaction of respondent authority.The said impugned order refers to the violation of the provisions of Section 2(c), 7-A and 10 of the Act. Subsequently on 2nd March, 1983 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why proceedings under the provisions of the Act as referred to above, be not initiated against the petitioner, since the petitioner had committed violation of the rules and the provisions of the Act as referred to above. 7. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A.K. Sharma has contended that the impugned order, dated 25.2.1982 (Annex. 1) and show cause notice dated 2nd March, 1983 (Annex. 2) issued by respondent No. 2 are illegal, unjust and not warranted by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence without jurisdiction and void for the reason that no licence is required for possessing V. D. O. set under the rules, whereas licence is required for possessing television set which the petitioner was in possession on the date of the seizure. It was further argued that the provisions of the Act, as referred to above, are non existant in the statute and as such there was no scope for the licensing authority to have applied the same to the petitioner. 8. A bare perusal of the Act and the Rules clearly reveals that section 2 is an interpretation clause which defines 'cinematograph', 'local law', 'place' and 'prescribed'. 8. A bare perusal of the Act and the Rules clearly reveals that section 2 is an interpretation clause which defines 'cinematograph', 'local law', 'place' and 'prescribed'. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the word 'prescribed' as prescribed by this Act or by the Rules made thereunder. Section 7A of the Act is non-existant in the Act. Section 7 of the Act deals with the power of the authority to suspend the exhibition of films in certain cases which is neither attracted nor applicable to the facts of the instant case. Section 10 of the Act deals with the powers of the State Government to make rules and lays down the terms and conditions and restrictions, if any, subject to which licence may be granted under the Act. The said provision is also neither attracted nor-applicable to the facts of the instant case. 9. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of this court in the matter of Malsingh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 355/89 reported in 1991 (2) RLR 494 , in which this court held that there can be no restriction of V.D.O. parloucrs and that they should be permitted to exhibit all sort of films except those prohibited by law. It was further held that police authorities are not required to seize V.C. Rs. T. Vs., Projectors, Screan or any other material connected with the exhibition of films except objectionable films etc. even when there is violation of the provisions of law affecting the fundamental rights of the citizens to business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution f India. Reference may also be made in this connection to judgments reported in 1983 RLR 581, AIR 1987 Madhya Pradesh 96, 1989 Jabalpur Law Journal 562. In the said decisions the various High Courts have taken consistant view that the circulars issued by the State Governments cancelling the V.D.O. licence on the alleged violation of the orders referred to in the circulars, is violative of petitioner's fundamental rights to business under Art. 190)(g) of the Constitution of India and were consequently struck down by the High Courts as unconstitutional. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents placed on the record and the impugned order passed by the licensing authority (Annex. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents placed on the record and the impugned order passed by the licensing authority (Annex. 1), I am of the considered opinion that the licensing authority (respondent No. 2) before applying the provisions of the Act, as referred to above, should have examined and known at the first instance as to whether the provisions of the Act, i.e., sections 2(c), 7A and 10 of the Act of 1952 exist in the enactment before applying the said provisions to the case of the petitioner. This is a clear case of non-application of mind by the licensing authority inasmuch as the provisions as referred to above, are non-existant in the Act of 1952 and, therefore, the passing of the impugned order, dated 25.2.1982 has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner besides violation of his fundamental right to business under Art. 190)(g) of the Constitution of India, suffice it to say that nothing contrary to the provisions of law should have been done by the licensing authority since it undermines the confidence of the people in the administration of justice as has happened in the instant case. I am therefore, of the view that the State Government should issue suitable directions to the concerned authorities including the police to be cautions in future before passing any order which may entail serious consequences of violating the fundamental rights of the citizens and with a view to avoid harassment to the citizens. Suitable action should be taken against the concerned authorities found indulging in violation of the provisions of law. 11. This writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- It is directed that 50% of the total amount of cost realised from the respondents, i.e., Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited with Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today.Petition Allowed with costs. *******