JAIN, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the operation of the VCR and further they be restrained from taking any coercive step against the petitioner and not to seize or confiscate the VCR/vcp, TV and other instruments.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Choudhary has contended that in the Rajasthan Video Films (Regulation or Exhibition) Act, 1990 there are provisions for obtaining licence but this Act has not come into force as yet, for want of publication but the petitioner has an apprehension that the SHO may proceed against him despite the Government Circular Anx. l, however, he undertakes that he will obtain a licence when it is required on the basis of new Act. He has relied on Prince Video Vs. State bearing D. B. C. W. Pet. No. 753/88 decided 29. 11. 88. Admittedly under the earlier Rajasthan Cinema Regulation Act, 1952 there is no such provision which may insist for obtaining licence for exhibiting films on VCRs. and VCPs. Therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioner to obtain a licence, which is also clear from the letter Ant. 1 issued by the State Government. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the observation that the respondents will not insist the petitioner for obtaining licence for exhibiting films on VCRs. and VCPs. . . under the aforesaid Act. .;