ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by Cable Television Networks challenging the demand/leviability of additional license fee under Rule 17(2) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules, 1988 as amended by 4th Amendment Rules 2011. The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions fall in following three categories: (i)Local Television Channels (ii)Multi System Operators (MSO) (iii)Cable Operators.
(2.) THE first two writ petitions and some other writ petitions have been filed by Local Television Channels. The writ petitioners namely; All India Local Television Channel Owners Welfare Trust and Shiv Shakti Media And Communication Pvt. Ltd. are local Television Channels. The third writ petition of M/s Meerut Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. is the writ petition filed by Multi System Operators (MSO). In writ petition filed by Aavesh Garg and others, the petitioner no. 1 is a local Television channel and petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are cable operators. Writ petition No. 1040 of 2012, Hathway Digital Saharanpur Cable and Data Com. Pvt. Ltd. has been filed by Multi System Operator which is also running a local Television channel B. For U. All the above writ petitions fall in one or other categories as noticed above. For deciding this bunch of writ petitions, it is necessary to note the facts of few writ petitions belonging to above three categories. Writ petition No. 404 of 2012 has been filed by All India Local Television Channel Owners Welfare Trust. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.2011 issued by District Magistrate, Gorakhpur by which the local channels have been refused to be regularized for non deposit of additional licence fee. The petitioner submitted an application before the District Magistrate on 19.12.2011 stating that registration fee for cable Television Network of Rs. 500/- as required by Central Government is deposited and under U.P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) (Fourth Amendment )Rules, 2011 fee of Rs. 2400/- per annum as required by Rule 17(1) is also deposited. The Entertainment Tax Department is demanding additional fee under Rule 17(2) whereas by Amendment Rule 17(2) has been deleted. Local channels did not receive any money from viewers and local channels highlights the local problems, local news programmes through MSO. The entertainment tax is also realized from the MSO. After receiving the letter dated 19.12.2011 from the petitioner, the District Magistrate replied the said letter by order dated 26.12.2011. It has been stated that under 2011 Rules, there is provisions of issue of licence under Rule 17(1) on payment of fee of Rs. 2400/- per annum and according to Rule 17(2) at the rate of per Television screen is Rs. 100/- per annum is charged as additional licence fee. It has been stated in the order that after payment of licence fee of Rs. 2400/- and Rs. 100/- the additional licence fee per Television screen any cable networks shall be permitted to run local channel. The application of the petitioner was disposed of. The petitioner feeling aggrieved have filed the writ petition making following prayers: "a) Issue a writ certiorari to quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the District Magistrate Gorakhpur i.e. respondent no. 3 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to create any let or hindrance in the exhibition of local channels by means of Cable Television Network by not compelling them for depositing the additional license fee than what is provided in Rule 17(ii) of the U.P. Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by Means of Video) Rules, 1988. c)Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3."
(3.) WRIT petition No. 813 of 2012 has been filed by two local channels namely; M/s Shiv Shakti Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., petitioner no. 1 is operating local channel namely S. Television, and the petitioner no. 2 is running a Family Channel in city of Varanasi. The petitioners obtained a registration certificate from Head Post Master, Varanasi. The petitioners' case is that for the purpose of telecast of their programmes they have to hire MSO. MSO provide cable Television signals which are limited to the city. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 5, MSO, who is service provider. The petitioners further claim to have obtained license under 1988 Rules and have deposited fee of Rs. 2400/- per annum. The Rule 1988 were amended by 4th Amendment Rules, 2011 dated 31.3.2011. According to the amendment, the term license sought to include exhibition of video through cable television network or television signal receivers agency. The petitioners' case is that 4th Amendment Rules, 2011 further amended Rule 17 and provision of imposition of licence fee was done away with. The District Magistrate, Varanasi passed an order dated 20.4.2011 directing all MSOs/ Control room operators/ local channels operators to obtain licence by making an application and after obtaining licence, the channels be exhibited failing which establishment shall be sealed. The petitioners have also referred to the order dated 3.4.2012 of the Entertainment Tax Commissioner, U.P. addressed to all the District Magistrates informing that apart from licence fee of Rs. 2400/- per VCP per year additional licence fee at the rate of Rs. 100/- per Television screen is required to be realized. Notice dated 17.4.2012 were issued to two MSOs of Varanasi asking them to give information of number of connections failing which on the basis of informations collected in the office, the additional licence fee under Rule 17(2) shall be determined. Following prayers have been made by the petitioners of writ petition No. 813 of 2012: a)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the order of respondent no. 2 dated 03.04.2012, imposing additional license fee of Rs. 100/- per television screen per financial year (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). b)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the notice of assessment dated 17.4.2012, issued by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 5 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). c)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to interfere in the running of the channel by the petitioners upon due payment of Rs. 2400/- as license fee prescribed by Rule 17 of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulations of Exhibition by means of Video) (4th Amendment) Rules, 2011. d)Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." ;