ORDER 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.1.2007 whereby application filed by the present petitioners for obtaining no objection certificate for running a show namely Film Natya Sangeet in Gwalior Trade Fair 2006-2007 is rejected on the ground that the administration is unable to provide protection to the said show and running of the said show is likely to create law and order situation. Before passing this order, the District Magistrate, Gwalior has also called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior who has submitted his report to the Collector that it is not possible to maintain law and order situation in the trade fair as the shows which are exhibited in the said programme are vulgar and had a bad impact on the society and culture. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the previous years also, shows were stopped on the similar ground and petition WP 86/95 was filed which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.1.1995 by holding that the State can impose reasonable restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights by its citizens, but the said restrictions cannot be arbitrary or illogical. It is open to the State or its instrumentalities to restrict the citizen from carrying on his profession or business or trade which is not prohibited by law. Right to carryon business which is not prohibited by law is guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and such rights cannot be infringed by the statutory authorities. In the present case also the respondents could not point out that the show which the petitioners are going to exhibit is prevented by any law. 4. The apex Court in the case of Ajay Goswami v. Union of India [ (2007) 1 SCC 143 ] while considering the scope of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India has held that while imposing restrictions on public issues, the authorities can impose reasonable restrictions and it is for the State to justify that prohibition of particular expression of opinion must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. 5. 5. After considering the aforesaid judgment and hearing parties counsel, I find that the present petitioners cannot be restricted from carrying on their profession of exhibiting the show. However, they cannot be permitted to create law and order situation by showing obscenity on the stage. 6. In such circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to issue no objection certificate to the petitioners on the condition that the present petitioners shall give an undertaking that they will not create any law and order problem in the trade fair, they will see that no obscenity is created in their show and for this purpose, they will provide a direct live telecast of their programmes to the police control room so that in case the petitioners exceeds in their limits in their shows, action can be taken against them by police authorities. Petitioners are also free to keep their own security guards present so that law and order situation is maintained. If any loss is caused due to law and order situation to any person, then the present petitioners shall be responsible for making the said loss good. On these conditions, no objection certificate shall be granted to present petitioners. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.