1. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners seek for a writ of Mandamus or direction declaring that the provisions of the A.P Cinemas (Regulation) Act. 1955 and the Rules made thereunder and the provisions of the A.P Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 are not applicable to ‘Video Parlours.’
2. The petitioners run Video Parlours at several places. They show pictures on a Television scrcen by playing pre-recorded tapes (cassettes) on Video Cassette Recorder for short V.C.R They provide cool drinks, coffee and tea in their parlours to the customers According to them, their main business to supply beverages and showing the film is incidental for attracting customers and improving their turnover. They aver that they do not charge anything extra for the films nor do they collect any admission fee. Hence they contend that neither the A.P Cinemas (Regulation) Act nor the A.P Entertainments Act have any application. They say that the action of the authorities in enforcing the aforesaid acts interferes with their business and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the A.P Cinema (Regulation) Act and the rules made thereunder and the provisions of the A.P Entertainments Tax Act are applicable to Video Parlours. If the said Acts apply to the petitioners' activity, the question of Article 19 of the Constitution does not arise.
3. The expression ‘Cinematograph’ is defined in the Act as including any apparatus for the representation of the moving pictures or series of pictures. ‘Television’ means, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary “a system employing photoelectrical and wireless processes by means of which an actual or recorded scene may be reproduced at a distance on a screen”—“Vision of distant objects obtained thus”. Thus television means vision of distant objects transmitted by wireless process. But when it is connected to a video casette player it does not show pictures transmitted from a distance by magnetic waves. It is converted into an apparatus for the representation of series of pictures of the choice of the exhibitor. Thus the whole set is a cinematograph within the meaning of Section 2 of the Cinematograpy Act, 1955. The definition is an inclusive definition, which includes any apparatus for representing moving pictures. So we hold playing video is exhibition by Cinematograph.
4. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Shri Balwinder Singh Petitioner v. Delhi Administration & Others S (1) A.I.R 1984 Delhi 379 held that video and television both are cinematographs and a licence is necessary for public exhibition of films. We are in entire agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court.
5. A similar question arose in Dineshkumar Hanumanorasad Tiwari v. State Of Maharashtra (2) A.I.R 1984, Bombay 34 before the Bombay High Court. Justice Qazi, of Nagpur Bench has held that V.C.R and T.V sets are cinematographs and the exhibition of films in the video parlours is governed by the provisions of the Cinematograph Act.
6. The State Government in exercise of their rule making power conferred under Sec. 11 of the A.P Cinemas Act issued G.O.Ms No. 579, Home (General-A) dated 8th December, 1983 published in the Gazette on 12-1-1984, added the following proviso after the fourth proviso, to rule 6 of the Rules.
“Provided also that in the case of Public Exhibition of films on Video in any place, the rules and the specifications in Appendix-IX shall apply and the licensing authority may apply to these exhibitions such of the specifications specified in Appendices-I, II and III and such of the rules, with such modifications as may be considered necessary.”
7. The validity of this rule was challenged in a batch of writ petitions as ultra vires the A.P Cinematograph Act mainly on the ground that the A.P Cinematograph Act itself does not apply to Videos. A learned single Judge of this Court in W.P No. 8464 of 1983 and batch upheld the validity of the G.O We are informed that no appeal was preferred against this judgment.
8. Having regard to the definition of Cinematograph, in the A.P Cinemas Act and the decisions referred to above, we hold that the A.P Cinemas Act and the rules made thereunder apply to video parlours.
9. The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that in any event the provisions of the A.P Entertainments Tax Act are not applicable. In order to decide this question we would like to refer to the meaning of the word ‘entertainment’ occurring in the A.P Entertainments Tax Act. Sec. 2(4) of the Act defines ‘entertainment’ as “cinematograph exhibition to which persons are admitted on payment”. Now let us turn to the meaning of the word ‘entertainment’. ‘Entertainment’ is defined in Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition: volume 14A, page 353) as “a source or means of amusement; a diverting performance, especially a public performance, as a concert, drama, or the like.”
10. “Entertainment” denotes that which serves for amusement, and “amusement” is defined as a pleasurable occupation of the senses, or that which furnishes it, as dancing, sports, or music.”
11. In Reader's Digest Gamily Word Finder at page 264, ‘entertainment, is defined as “amusement, diversion’ distraction, recreation. Fun play good time pastime, novelty pleasure, enjoyment satisfaction.”
12. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary the word ‘entertainment’ has been defined at page 757 as the act of diverting, amusing, or causing some one's time to pass agreeably.
13. Similarly in the Concise English Dictionary by Hayward and Sparkes the word ‘entertainment’ has been defined as “the art of entertainment, amusing or diverting, the pleasure afforded to the mind by anything interesting, amusement, other performance intended to amuse”.
14. On a perusal of the definition and the various meanings ascribed in the: several books referred to above, we have no hesitation in holding that the films exhibited on the TVs with the help of video cassettes cannot be anything but entertainment. Even in a case of what are called video games, the Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises v. State of U.P (3) (1983) 4 SCC 202 : AIR 1983 SC 1098 held that provision of tools for playing the games by the customers though involves skiff, is entertainment and therefore the provisions of the Entertainment Act are attracted. The Supreme Court referred to a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court which said that since games are played by the customers themselves with their skill, it does not amount to entertainment, has been over ruled observing that it is immaterial whether the customers play the games so long as the tools are provided with the help of which entertainment is derived it would be entertainment within the meaning of Enteriainment Tax Act. Justice Fazal Ali speaking for the Court observed that the word ‘entertainment’ got a very wide meaning and even if the entertainment be educative, it does not cease to be Entertainment. The cases which we are dealing are afortiori cases in as much as the video parlour owners themselves exhibit the films on the TVs with the help of pre-recorded tapes. It is not in dispute that the customers are charged much higher rates for the soft drinks like limca Maaza etc. and other beverages like tea and coffee than in the ordinary restaurants. It is obvious that these high rates are charged not only for the beverages provided but also for the entertainment. We therefore, hold that the exhibition of films in the video parlour comes within the definition of Entertainment and as such the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act are attracted. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no admission rate is charged and no customer pays the money before entering into the parlour cannot be sustained. The time at which the amount is paid is wholly irrelavent in deciding the question whether any entertainment is provided. It is also submitted that the main business is that of providing beverages and films are exhibited in order to improve their business. We find this argument equally irrelavent. The name itself is “Video Parlour” and films are shown with the V.C.Rs When once it is a cinematograph, the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act would apply and the video parlour owners are liable to pay the entertainment tax.
15. In a few writ petitions the non-applicability of Excise Act is also raised. But No argument was advanced on that aspect. In fact, we have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioners but we got no assistance. The main contentions raised are that the provisions of the A.P Cinemas Act and the provisions of the A.P Entertainments Tax Act do not apply. For the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in any of the contentions. We accordingly dismiss the writ petitions but in the circumstances without costs.
16. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/- in each case.