JUDGMENT - Dr. UPASANI PRATIBHA, J.:---This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-Madhu C. Chellani, praying that LAC Case No. 589 of 1992, pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund, Bombay, be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed that the order dated 30th April, 1992, whereby Sony T.V. 2062 and V.C.R. Model G 10, which was seized by the Police, be returned to him. After perusing the Roznama, it appears that on 21st October, 1992, ad interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c) was granted on the petitioner's depositing Rs. 5,000/- with Bhandup Police Station and further executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and respondent No. 2 herein was directed to return the property which was seized by him from the petitioner's Kailash Video Centre. 2. Few relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner is running a video cinema at Kailash Video Centre, Opp. A.P.I. Bhandup (West) Bombay. The petitioner's case is that he shows certified films to the members of the society. On or around February, 1992, respondent No. 1 seized Sony Colour T.V. 2062 and Video Cassette Recorded valued at Rs. 27,000/-. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have purported to charge him under section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and that the said order of seizure is bad in law and hence is required to be set aside. 4. Heard Ms. Kamath, learned Additional P.P. for the respondents. Also perused the proceedings. Ms. Kamath drew my attention to Rule 24-C in Chapter III-B. These Rules are made in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and Clauses (a), (a-i) (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1953. Rule 24-C is incorporated in Chapter III-B. The heading of the said Chapter is "Special provisions relating to Video Cinema". Rule 24-C reads as follows. "Video Cinema Licence"-No place shall be opened or allowed to remain open to the public being used as video cinema unless the person being the owner, tenant or occupier thereof shall have obtained a licence therefor." Ms. Kamath submitted that the Video Cinema Centre, which the petitioner is admittedly running is covered by the definition of section 2(9) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and requires licence for running the said Video Centre, which the petitioner admittedly does not have. Kamath submitted that the Video Cinema Centre, which the petitioner is admittedly running is covered by the definition of section 2(9) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and requires licence for running the said Video Centre, which the petitioner admittedly does not have. She further argued that as per the provisions of section 33(w), the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, has made rules. 5. After hearing Ms. Kamath and after perusing rules shown by her, the position that emerges is that the petitioner was admittedly running Video Cinema without the required licence and obviously, therefore, the respondents rightly initiated L.A.C. case against him in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund. It appears from the Roznama that this Court has granted stay of those proceedings which were pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Mulund by its order dated 21st October, 1992. However, in view of the above-mentioned discussion, following order is passed : Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order dated 21st October, 1992, staying the proceedings in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund in L.A.C. Case No. 589 of 1992 is hereby vacated. The learned Magistrate to go on with the matter in accordance with law. Writ to be sent as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition dismissed. -----