- (1.) The appellant - PVR Limited - in Civil Appeal Nos. 10091 of 2010 and 10092 of 2010 is engaged in the business of exhibiting movies at various locations across the country including Bangalore. The appellant operates eleven (11) theaters in a multiplex at Bangalore for which it has been granted necessary permissions/approvals as well as requisite licence for exhibition by the 2nd respondent i.e. District Magistrate, Bangalore. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging, inter alia, a communication dated 2nd April, 2005 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Internal Administration and Transport, Bangalore to the 2nd respondent informing the said respondent that theater owners and owners of M/s PVR Cinemas are required to obtain compulsory certificates from Films Division under the Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Rule 35(c) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed thereunder and to exhibit the films approved by the Films Division. An endorsement dated 28th May, 2005 requiring the appellant to obtain "Compulsory Certificate from Films Division" under the aforesaid Act and the Rules was also put to challenge in the writ petition filed. The effect of the aforesaid impugned orders, it may be noticed, is that the appellant before screening the regular movies in its theaters was required to exhibit documentary films produced by the Films Division only.
(2.) The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the High Court against which order the appellant had instituted Writ Appeal No.979 of 2006 (Cinema). The aforesaid writ appeal, on the grounds and reasons recorded in the order dated 16th November, 2006, was allowed in the following terms: "25. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Order of learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice issued by the second respondent and the order passed by first respondent are quashed. Rule issued in the writ petition which was discharged by passing the impugned order is set aside and made absolute."
(3.) However, on 18th November, 2006, the matter was reconsidered by the Bench once again and the following order was passed: "We have already held that the documentary Films referred to produced by third respondent are not approved by the State Government 'from time to time' under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act read with relevant Rules and the impugned order and notice in the writ petition are quashed. We also made an observation to constitute the Advisory Board by the State Government under Rule 8 of the Rules. Since this process may take some time, in the meanwhile, it would be just and proper for this Court to give direction to the Licensing Authorities in the Karnataka State to incorporate the terms and conditions in the licenses that would be issued in favour of the licensees stating that the films including documentary which are enumerated under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12 of the Act that are produced by third respondent shall be screened in the theatres of licensees on such terms and conditions that may be imposed upon them which are not objectionable to the State Government. Ordered accordingly.";