G.K Sharma, J.:— This revision petition is preferred against the order of District Judge, Tonk dated 11th May, 1988, whereby, he reversed the order of the Munsif, Malpura, dated 20th April, 1988.
2. The petitioner filed a suit against the non-petitioner, seeking relief for a decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant-non-petitioner, or his agents or servants from exhibiting through their satellite-disc, feature-films or any other programmed. Along with the suit, an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 &2, CPC was also filed. The learned Munsif allowed that application, and restrained the defendant-non-petitioner, or his agent or servants from exhibiting through their satellite disc, feature-films or any other programmed except the programmed relayed through INSAT I-B. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-non-petitioner; and the learned District Judge, Tonk, accepted the said appeal and reversed the order of the learned Munsif. Mr. R.S Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the defendant-non-petitioner submitted an application for granting him a licence to operate TV/Video Cassette Recorder sets, for receiving the TV programmes direct from the Indian Satellite in broadcasting satellite service and fixed satellite service, under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985. On that application, a licence was granted to defendant-non-petitioner on 17th Feb., 1988, from the Office of Telecom District Engineer, Sawaimadhopur. After receiving this licence, the non-petitioner is exhibiting feature-films and other programmes not relayed through INSAT I-B.
3. It was argued by Mr. Rathore that the lincence granted to the non-petitioner could not be used for purposes other than the purposes applied for. Then, this licence was issued in terms a letter of DOT No. 5-4/86-PHC dated 31st Dec., 1986. This was a letter issued by the Director, Telecom Circle. So, the non-petitioner was granted the licence for a particular purpose, and be could relay through the disk the programmes of TV which were received through INSAT I-B, and he was not permitted to use the disk for other purposes, that is to say, for exhibiting feature-failms and other programmers not relayed through INSAT I.B
4. Mr. Rathore also brought to my notice a letter dated 17th Aug., 1988, clarifying as to for what purpose, the disk licence was issued to the non-petitioner, and in the said letter, it has been mentioned that the licence was issued for exhibiting the programmes received through INSAT I-B, and for other programmers, the licence was not issued. Thus, according to Mr. Rathore, the learned District Judge has committed error in passing the order, and he could not understand the purposes for which the disk-licence was issued to the non-petitioner.
5. Mr. KC Sharma, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other band, argued that the licence was issued and the non-petitioner was permitted to use TV/VCR sets, and there was no necessity for him to have a separate license for exhibiting feature-films and other programmes on the VCRs, and in support of his argument, he relied on the case of (1) Ghoomar Cafe v. State of Rajasthan, (1986 (2) WLN 748), which is S.B decision of this Court, and wherein, while disposing of that writ petition, it was held that it is only video films which are produced are required to undergo a necessary certification as contained in R. 21. But the old duly certified celluloid films are required to undergo recertification. However, the old films which are produced on TV films, will definitely display the certificate obtained from the Censor Board and it has also to be shown on the video cassette case in Form IV-A. Mr. Sharma thus argued that there cannot be any bar for a licensee like the non-petitioner from using VCR for entertaining the public because the non-petitioner had got a licence for that purpose, and so, a separate licence for showing films etc. on VCR sets, was not needed. Thus, according to Mr. Sharma, the non-petitioner has not committed any illegality in showing feature-films and other programmers, through VCRs. to his customers.
6. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the judgment in the case of Ghoomar Cafe (supra). That case does not have any application to the present case. In those writ petitions, the petitioner was carrying on this business as a sole proprietor in the name of Ghoomar Cafe at Ghas Mandi Road, Jodhpur. The petitioner was having a VCR & a TV in respect of which, it was paying regularly the licences-fee for the commercial use of the same. It was using the VCR and the TV for the entertain ment of its customers It was paying entertainment-tax in respect of the VCR and TV sets under the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner in that case also used to display video-cassette films duly certified under the Act. The petitioner submitted that it was receiving threatenings from the non-petitioner of seizing the VCR and the TV sets. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted the writ petition. So, in that case, the licence was with regard to use of VCR & TV sets for entertaining the customers of the petitioner Ghoomar Cafe, the petitioner in that case, was not having a licence for relaying the programmes of the INSAT I-B, received through the disk-antenna, as the non-petitioner has in this case. Here, the non-petitioner was not having a licence for using VCR and TV sets for entertaining his customers, but he held a licence to operate TV/VCR sets for receiving TV programmes through INSAT I-B He was granted the licence to relay the programme received on TV through the INSAT I-B, through the disk installed by him, for the members who had applied for getting the benefit of this programme. Therefore, the case of Ghoomar Cafe (supra) is quite different and distinguishable from the present case So, that case is of no help to the non-petitioner in this case.
7. I have perused the application form submitted for obtaining a licence to possess or operate TV and VCR sets, for receiving TV programmers direct from the Indian Satellite in Broadcasting Satellite Service. In this form, the applicant has to submit a declaration and para-4 of the said declaration is that he shall receive only the TV programmes from Indian Satellite specified above through the licensed apparatus It means, before applying for a licence and at the time of getting a licence, the applicant has to give a declaration that he would use the licence only to receive the TV programmes from the Indian Satellite It does not mean that he has been permitted to utilize the licence for exhibiting feature-films and other programmes on TV and VCR sets, which are not received through the Indian Satellite. In my opinion, this licence was granted for a particular purpose, and that purpose was to relay the programmes which are telecast on TV through the INSAT IB, because in certain villages the transmission of TV programmes is not clear & strong and the public is not able to see those programmes received through the Indian Satellite. So, the purpose behind the grant of licence to the non-petitioner in this case was a very limited one, simply to facilitate the public for watching the TV programmes received through the Indian Satellite. So, certainly, the non-petitioner was permitted to use the VCR and TV sets, so that, he could receive the TV programmes on them through the Indian Satellite and then those programmes could be exhibited to public, but it does not mean that he was authorised to show public any other programmes like feature-films etc. on the VCR and TV sets.
8. Apart from this, the licence was issued on 17th Feb., 1988. Condition No. 3 of this licence is that this licence would not be used for any reception or transmission purpose other than the purpose applied for. Condition No. 5 is that it has been issued in terms of a letter of DOT No. 5-4/86-PHC dated 31st Dec. 1986 on the subject (issue of licence) to operate/possess, or for dealing in TV/VCR sets, and be governed by the rules on the subject from time to time.
9. I have also perused the letter dated 31st Dec., 1986, as mentioned in Condition No. 5. This letter is with regard to issue of licence to operate, possess or for dealing in TV/VCR sets. Item No. 6 of the said letter, reads as under:
“6. The reception of television programmes from Indian Satellite (INSAT) only shall be permitted. The initial applications received by the concerned offices for the above licence may be sent to the Assistant Director General (CS-2) in the Telecom Directorate so as to decide about the policy on the type of sets to be permitted for issue of licences.”
10. In view of the letter dated 31st Dec., 1986, the licence dated 17th Feb., 1988 was issued in favour of the non-petitioner. So, the purpose of this licence was a limited one; and in the licence, it has been mentioned that it was with regard to receiving the TV programmes relayed through the Indian Satellite Ion TV/VCR sets and showing them to the customers. It did not mean that the non-petitioner was permitted to use this licence for exhibiting feature-films land other programmes on TV/VCR sets, to his customers, which were not received through the INSAT I-B. So, a general licence was not granted to the non-petitioner. It might have been as held in the Ghoomar Cafe's case (supra) that no separate licence for VCR sets was necessary, but, this case as held above, is distinguishable from that one. The licence in this case is very clear. The non-petitioner was not permitted to use this licence for exhibiting feature-films and other programmes on his TV/VCR sets to his customers, which were not received through the INSAT I-B, or were not Indian TV Programmes. The letter dated 17th July, 1988 shown to me by Mr. Rathore, issued from the office of Telecom District Engineer, Sawaimadhopur, also clarifies the position, and it has been clearly mentioned therein that the licence was issued only with regard to INSAT I-B programmes and not for any other programmes.
11. I would also like to mention here that the licence was granted to the non-petitioner on a concessional fixed fee basis, Why on concessional fixed fee? The reason was obvious, because, the licence was given, or permission was granted only for those programmes which were received through INSAT I-B and shown by Indian Television. The relevant Item No. 13 of the Conditions for the licence, reads as under:
“13. The community sets licensed at the concessional rate of licence fee shall be used to listen to programmes telecast from the stations of Doordarshan only.”
12. So this condition further clarifies the position that the licensee was not permitted to use the licence for exhibiting feature-films or other programmes, not received through INSAT I-B or which were not Indian Television programmes. This condition No. 13 it mentioned in the application form for licence, itself. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the non-petitioner in this case was not permitted to use his TV/VCR sets for showing feature-films and other programmes not relayed through INSAT I-B or telecast from Indian Television. The learned District Judge, has, therefore, committed error in setting aside the order of the learned Munsif. The order of the learned District Judge dated 11th May, 1988 as such, cannot be maintained, and is hereby set aside; and that of the learned Munsif dated 20th Apr., 1988 is restored.
13. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, with the above observations.
Comments