Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/R.Perumal, Managing Director of Balaji Theatre, Puducherry, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent/District Magistrate cum Licensing Authority, Government of Puducherry, to issue Form-C licence to the petitioner under the Pondicherry Cinemas Regulation Act, without insisting the petitioner to procure films only from the 2nd respondent/Flim Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Chennai, alone. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running one of the oldest theatre in the name and style of “Balaji Theatre” in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the said theatre is governed by the provisions of the Pondicherry Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 and the rules made thereunder. The District Collector is the licencing authority under the Act. For running the thereafter, the petitioner has to approach the licencing authority seeking permission for exhibiting films. The 3rd respondent has been issuing direction under Section 8 of the Pondicherry Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964. As per Section 8 of the Act, “the licencing authority may from time to time, issue directions to any licencee or licencees generally, requiring the licencee or licencees to exhibit in each show such slides of public interest as may be supplied by that authority”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner as per the direction issued then and there by the licencing authority has been abiding by the direction by exhibiting the films of public interest produced by the 2nd respondent. In compliance of the said direction, the petitioner has been issued with Form-C licence and the same has been periodically renewed. In view of the compulsory procurement of the films exhibited on public interest, Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act was challenged questioning its constitutional validity before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In compliance of the said direction, the petitioner has been issued with Form-C licence and the same has been periodically renewed. In view of the compulsory procurement of the films exhibited on public interest, Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act was challenged questioning its constitutional validity before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Incidentally, when it is mandatory to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Film Division namely, the 2nd respondent, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 in the case of Union of India vs. Motion Picture Association, had clearly held that when it is not mandatory to procure such kind of films only from the Film Division, it has been held that none of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act make it mandatory for the exhibitors to procure such films only from the Film Division, thus the issue raised in the present writ petition has been succinctly answered. Therefore, he pleaded, in view of the said judgment, the petitioner need not procure any 3rd films from the 2nd respondent, but the licencing authority namely, the respondent/District Magistrate cum Licensing Authority, Government of Puducherry, without even considering the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 , making it not mandatory for any cinema theatre to procure films of public interest to be exhibited by every theatre in each show only from the Film Division, has wrongly refused to consider the grant of Form-C licence to the petitioner, therefore, he pleaded, such approach adopted by the 3rd respondent is absolutely unwarranted and untenable. 4. It is further submitted that when the petitioner has been running the theatre for decades in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, if it is closed for any reason, this will not only affect the income from the theatre, but it would also cause damage to the goodwill and reputation of his pioneer theatre. 5. Adding further, it was contended that the act of the respondents 3 and 4 in insisting upon the petitioner to procure films from the 2nd respondent/Film Division alone cannot be termed as a reasonable restriction as it is a clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 5. Adding further, it was contended that the act of the respondents 3 and 4 in insisting upon the petitioner to procure films from the 2nd respondent/Film Division alone cannot be termed as a reasonable restriction as it is a clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The act of the 3rd respondent in refusing to grant Form-C licence and issuing a temporary licence under Form-E for quite long time without any valid reason is not only arbitrary, illegal, but also against the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned supra. When the intention of the legislation is very clear that the people at large should have the benefit of seeing picture of scientific and educatory value of public interest, the said films are to be approved by the concerned authority to evaluate whether such films are within the parameters of the public interest. 6. It was further contended that the letter issued by the 4th respondent stating that the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that it is not mandatory to procure such kind of films only from the Film Division cannot be taken as a precedent, is an act of highhandedness and a clear act of contempt as Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes it mandatory that every judgment of the Apex Court is law of the land and binding on all the courts and authorities within the territory of India. 7. Taking support to his prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a letter in D.O.No.309/2/2002-F(A) dated 17.06.2003 of the Secretary, Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, addressed to all the Chief Secretaries of the State and Union Territory of Pondicherry, wherein, the Secretary for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India has informed that on proper consideration of the above said Supreme Court judgment, cinema exhibitors are free to obtain approved films from any source, reiterated his argument that when the issue is well settled that it is not compulsory for the exhibitors to procure approved films of public interest only from the Film Division, as the petitioner is also free to obtain approved film from any source and also procuring approved films from other sources and exhibiting at each show, the respondents cannot refuse to grant Form-C licence to the petitioner for running the theatre. As a matter of fact, the respondents have issued a temporary licence under Form-E in the place of Form-C licence as per rule 30 of the Pondicherry Cinema Regulation Rules, for a period of one month without even considering the pending application made by the petitioner seeking Form-C licence, as a result, the petitioner is unnecessarily forced to approach them every month for getting this Form-E licence and any default would cause huge prejudice. 8. Finally, heavily relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 , he has concluded his argument submitting that when it is mandatory for every cinema theatre to show for a short duration of its programme films which educate and impart information and disseminate the latest information, knowledge and idea to large percentage of population who are illiterate, it has been made clear that cinema exhibitors are free to obtain approved films from any source, therefore, the petitioner who is exhibiting in each show in his theatre the short film by procuring from other source, the Film Division cannot compel the petitioner to purchase the short approved films from them alone on payment of rental of 1% of net weekly collection for supply of such films. Moreover, when the relevant Act or notification or rules or terms and conditions of the licence do not stipulate payment of any rental, the respondents cannot deny the issuance of Form-C licence, therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 does not say anywhere that the petitioner can procure films from any source. In fact, the Apex Court in the said judgment while declaring that compulsion to show scientific, educational or documentary films does not infringe freedom of speech, equally, upheld the stand of the Film Division to charge 1% of net weekly collection for supply of approved films, holding that such act does not amount to levy of tax. Further, the said judgment shows that the exhibitors in order to fulfil the licence conditions, are required to enter into an agreement with the Film Division, Government of India, however, it is not mandatory for the exhibitors. Further, the said judgment shows that the exhibitors in order to fulfil the licence conditions, are required to enter into an agreement with the Film Division, Government of India, however, it is not mandatory for the exhibitors. Moreover, the approved films are intended to cater the social requirements of all walks of life in the country and no private purchasers can be matched to the approved films produced by the Film Division, Government of India. In a democratic country like ours, people have a right to know how their elected Government rule the country and equally the elected Government has a duty to inform the general public as to how the Government functions. In this context, the approved films of Film Division have been prepared as selective short films to disseminate the important development takes place in socio, political and economic field, therefore, the approved films of the Film Division are the only authentic means which fulfils the State and Central Government requirements under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Film Division has also produced nearly 52 different short and documentary films on various subjects in a year, and in order to maintain the uninterrupted supply of approved films, it is keeping as many as 10 different distribution branch offices in various places in the country, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that they are having inconvenience and practical difficulties in getting the approved films from the Film Division. As the petitioner wanted to avoid payment of 1% of net weekly collection for supply of such films, the case of the petitioner that they are exhibiting approved short films from the approved authorities cannot be taken on record, therefore, the non issuance of No Objection Certificate from the Film Division for issuing Form-C licence to the petitioner theatre cannot be found fault with. 10. 10. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 , it was further contended that when the Apex Court has held that No Objection Certificate from the Film Division before renewal of licence is only to ensure compliance of the statutory requirements by the licencee, and when the petitioner refuses to enter into an agreement requiring payment of rental of 1% of net weekly collection for supply of approved films from the Film Division, the respondents cannot be found fault with for refusal to issue No Objection Certificate which is a pre-condition for getting Form-C licence for running the petitioner's theatre. For the same proposition, he has relied upon one another judgment of our High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Film Exhibitors Association, Chennai, vs. Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Chennai, and others (W.A.No.463 of 2003 dated 20.02.2007) and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 also adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted that when the petitioner is running a theatre, he ought to have exhibited approved films procured from the Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, by signing an agreement with the 2nd respondent on payment of 1% of the collection made out of displaying the cinema on the screen. Moreover, the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 , has upheld the validity of Sections 12(4), and 6 and the conditions 15 and 22 made under the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1981 and when the said provisions are similar to the one made by Puducherry administration under Section 7 of the Puducherry Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, the petitioner cannot evade the above said payment. Till such compliance is made, the question of issuing Form-C licence does not arise. On this basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Till such compliance is made, the question of issuing Form-C licence does not arise. On this basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. This Court at the outset must make it clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 , while rejecting the argument that any kind of compulsion to show educational, scientific, documentary and other kind of films specified by the Film Division is not a reasonable restriction, held that the same is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, when free speech is the foundation of the democratic society, a free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints, dissemination of knowledge airing of differing view points, debating and forming one's own views and expressing them, are the basic indicia of a free society. 13. While emphasising the importance of exhibiting the short films distributed by the Film Division in paragraph 19 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if any licencee is in a position to procure such approved films from any other source, there is nothing in the statutes which prohibits him from doing so. These provisions, therefore, do not violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It must be borne in mind that the statutory provisions regarding grant of licence for showing cinematograph films and prescription of conditions therefor namely, to show scientific, educational, documentary films or the films carrying news or current events for a limited duration along with other films in each show has been made mandatory. 14. In the aforesaid background, the only question to be considered is whether the petitioner, who is running a cinema theatre, is bound to procure short films only from the Film Division or not. The answer can be had from paragraph 19 of the judgment reported in 1999 (6) SCC 150 . As I highlighted above, if any licencee is in a position to procure any approved film from any other source, there is nothing in the statutes which prohibits him from doing so, which shows that the petitioner is entitled to procure approved films from any other source. 15. As I highlighted above, if any licencee is in a position to procure any approved film from any other source, there is nothing in the statutes which prohibits him from doing so, which shows that the petitioner is entitled to procure approved films from any other source. 15. One another judgment of our High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in the case of Tamil Nadu Film Exhibitors Association, Chennai, vs. Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Chennai, and others (W.A.No.463 of 2003 dated 20.02.2007) makes it clear that if the exhibitors are able to show that they have exhibited other approved films though not supplied by the Film Division, but from other source, then the burden lies on the exhibitors to substantiate their case by giving the relevant data. Only in such case, the mandatory requirement as imposed on the exhibitors can be discharged by satisfactorily showing that they have exhibited films other than those supplied or made available to them for exhibition by the Film Division. 16. The above judgment shows that any exhibitor like the petitioner theatre is entitled to procure any short film that has been approved by the Film Division. In this context, when it has been the case of the petitioner that they have been exhibiting the short films by procuring from various other sources as permitted by the Government of India in its communication in D.O.No.309/2/2002-F(A) dated 17.06.2003, making it clear that the cinema exhibitors are free to obtain approved films from any other source, compelling the petitioner to execute an agreement with the Film Division on payment of 1% of the net weekly collection for supply of approved films from the Film Division, is unacceptable. Besides, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner theatre is not exhibiting any approved short films in each show. 17. Therefore, for all the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, accordingly, it is allowed by issuing a direction to the respondents to issue Form-C licence to the petitioner theatre, forthwith. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.